Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered upon Thursday next.

METHODIST CHURCH BILL [Lords] (By Order)

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Attendance Centres

Mr. Sims: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many senior attendance centres there are in England and Wales; and what plans he has to increase their number.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): Only two such centres have been established, on an experimental basis. We have no plans to provide more at present.

Mr. Sims: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the centres to which he refers have been open since 1958 and 1962, respectively, thus giving ample time for evaluating experiments? Is he aware that despite the apparent lack of interest in these experiments by the Home Office, the centres have proved successful as an economic means of dealing with young offenders in the 17–20 age group? Will he reconsider this decision?

Mr. John: The Advisory Committee on the Penal System has recommended in its 1974 Report, as part of a larger package, that these two centres be closed, because it feels that the opportunity for community service forms a more constructive way of proceeding. We are considering that matter as part of the whole of the recommendations, but during the time we are considering it the two centres will remain open.

Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is of the greatest urgency and importance that there should be a move away from custodial treatment for offences towards this sort of technique? Is this matter receiving urgent attention in the Home Office?

Mr. John: It is receiving immediate attention. I point out to my hon. Friend that the alternative posed by the Advisory Committee is non-custodial in its nature.

Shot-guns

Mr. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will tighten the controls over the possession of shot-guns.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 18th March.

Mr. Townsend: Is the hon. Lady aware that the shot-gun has become the preferred weapon for the serious criminal? Is she further aware that many senior police officers feel that the current rules and regulations are riddled with anomalies? Will she take urgent action to try to deal with the situation?

Dr. Summerskill: We hope that in the next Session amending legislation to the firearms law will be included in a Criminal Justice Bill, the passage of which we hope the hon. Gentleman's party will facilitate; but I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech.

Mr. MacFarquhar: I do not wish to mitigate the problems of the criminal use of shot-guns, but will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no intention on the part of the Government to limit the use of shot-guns to those living in the country who own land? Does my hon. Friend appreciate that that would inhibit the use of shot-guns for sporting purposes?

Dr. Summerskill: I cannot anticipate the details of the legislation, but I can assure my hon. Friend that that matter will be taken into consideration when the legislation is drawn up.

Immigration

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further proposals for immigration controls he is considering to assist local authorities charged with having to house immigrant families who come to the United Kingdom with no advance provision for their housing or other financial support.

Mr. Hordern: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now revise the immigration rules to ensure that no immigrant, from whatever authorised method of entry to the United Kingdom, is allowed to enter the United Kingdom unless he or she can demonstrate that he will not be a charge on the provision of social security services.

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the liaison between his Department and local authorities on the reception of immigrant families.

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans for issuing further orders under the Immigration Act 1974 to tighten the restrictions on new immigrant entrants and their dependants.

Sir George Young: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with current provisions for admitting voucher holders from Malawi; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I have no plans to reduce the annual quota of 5,000 special vouchers for United Kingdom passport holders, whether from Malawi or elsewhere. I recognise that a very small proportion of the families who are admitted under the voucher scheme may be unable to provide for themselves immediately on arrival, but it would be undesirable and inconsistent with the object of the scheme to refuse them admission on that account. I keep the operation of the scheme under review, but it would not in general be feasible to arrange with local authorities in advance for the reception of individual families.
As to the dependants of persons settled here, there is a general requirement that a sponsor must be able and willing, without recourse to public funds, to support and accommodate his dependants seeking to join him. This requirement has not and does not, however, apply to the admission of the wife and children under 18 of a Commonwealth citizen who has the right of abode or was settled in the United Kingdom on the coming into force of the Immigration Act 1971.

Mr. MacGregor: Is the Home Secretary aware that these recent incidents—admittedly involving a small number of families—have created enormous resentment among ordinary working people and pensioners, especially those with incomes under £3,000; that in our current economic conditions they do our immigration policy and social security system no good


in the public eye; and that they are unfair to the immigrants themselves? Will he, in consultation with the Foreign Secretary, use our considerable muscle over relevant African Governments to introduce a tighter system that ensures that these cases do not arise again?

Mr. Jenkins: I am certainly aware that there has been considerable concern and resentment about this much-publicised but somewhat isolated, case. It is easy to criticise others, but, on the information available to me, I do not think that the local authority handled the matter particularly well. However, I am aware of the problem and am anxious—as I know the hon. Gentleman is from the way in which he phrased his supplementary question—that there should not be any unfair repercussions on other immigrants.
People in this category of United Kingdom passport holders from Africa countries are in general well able to support themselves and they quickly become useful and, quite often, prosperous members of the community. It is highly desirable that they should be able to do that from the beginning. That is one reason why we are having them in somewhat faster—but not above the 5,000 total. If racially discriminatory policies are pursued in other countries and these people are thrown out of work and have to wait a longer time to come here, there is more danger that they will be destitute when they arrive.

Mr. Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been various loopholes in the immigration controls, of which unscrupulous people have taken advantage? Will he see what can be done to stop up these loopholes, which are a matter of concern to both the indigenous and the legally immigrant population of this country?

Mr. Jenkins: I am aware that there are attempts to exploit loopholes in various ways. The extent can sometimes be exaggerated, but it certainly exists. In the interests of the immigrant community, the community as a whole, and good race relations, we need strict immigration control. Therefore, I am endeavouring in all possible ways to stop up such loopholes.

Mr. Hordern: Does the Secretary of State now recognise that he was wrong

to criticise the West Sussex County Council over its handling of the case that has been mentioned? It is intolerable that any local authority should be made responsible for carrying out what is national policy. Furthermore, there is the strongest objection to allowing immigrants into this country who immediately become dependent upon our social security services. What does he propose to do about reducing the number of entry vouchers?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not propose to reduce the number of entry vouchers. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have considerable respect, must see that, having accepted this obligation, which we inherited from the previous Government, to deal with the problem more slowly while people in other countries, for reasons into which I do not wish to go, pursue discriminatory policies against these people, would almost certainly guarantee that a greater proportion would be without funds when they came here. We want to deal with this limited, but difficult, problem in an orderly way, so that the people who arrive, as in the great majority of cases, are able to support themselves on arrival.

Mr. Bidwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the story of the Malawi Asian family in West Sussex has been ballooned out of all proportion to its importance to the British people, and that the most intelligent of them understand that? Does he further agree that in principle there is nothing against a destitute British pass-holding family being accommodated in a swanky hotel in West Sussex for a limited period, provided that they have a legitimate right to be in this country? Does he also agree that the Tory backwoodsmen should have their attention drawn to the action taken by Lord Carr, when Home Secretary, in facing the 1972 Ugandan Asian exodus fairly and squarely, and in principle—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are many supplementary questions on this Question.

Mr. Jenkins: I agree that Lord Carr faced this issue with courage and from the point of view of principle. I think that one must face this issue as a matter of principle. I agree that it must be handled with reasonable sensitivity to the


feelings of the people who were accommodated in the way that they were. Such a matter is almost inevitably ballooned out of all proportion. The job of all of us is to try to bring the matter back into proportion. One of the two families concerned did not come here under the voucher scheme, because the wife was patrial and was entitled to be here in any case.

Mr. Tim Renton: The Home Secretary referred to dealing with this problem in a limited and orderly way. Is not the danger that it may cease to be either a limited or an orderly problem? Does he agree with two propositions: first, that the possession of a United Kingdom passport should in no way be thought of as a passport to the social services and, secondly, that the reception of a large number of immigrants and their families places an intolerable strain on local authorities which have to deal with them, and that therefore they should be dealt with on a national basis?

Mr. Jenkins: If there were anything approaching a major problem, such as arose in 1972, it would have to be dealt with on a national basis. The circumstances surrounding the two families have been ballooned out of all proportion. The number of people who arrived last weekend was many more than the Press suggested, and none of them constituted a burden on the local authorities where they arrived. To set up an elaborate national organisation to deal with a limited problem would be bureaucracy run mad and not sensible future planning.
I talk of a limited and orderly way, because we have managed to reduce the problem substantially in scale. While we cannot be certain what the future will bring, we are less likely to have difficult problems if we face the matter in a rational way now.

Mr. Greville Janner: When considering the assistance of local authorities in receiving immigrants, will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to cities such as Leicester, which have assimilated large numbers of immigrants and require help with their problems?

Mr. Jenkins: I am aware that when large numbers of immigrants come in, as happened in 1972 and on certain other occasions, there is a concentration and

demand upon the resources of certain cities, of which Leicester is one and Birmingham is another. There are other cities as well. I agree that a considerable strain is imposed on local authorities. I pay tribute to the efforts of local authorities and, indeed, of individuals living in those areas to deal with the problem, often in difficult circumstances.

Sir G. Young: Are the Government unable to persuade other countries in the free world to offer refuge and hospitality to the victims of racialism in Malawi?

Mr. Jenkins: Many United Kingdom passport holders, formerly resident in East Africa, have gone to countries other than the United Kingdom, with a view to settlement. No doubt many more will do so. That is a reasonable allocation in view of what is happening. Obviously we cannot act by unilateral diktat in this matter. I agree that it is desirable that there should be dispersal when these problems arise. But, if that does not occur, they are passport holders of this country and not of other countries.

Mr. Faulds: Would it not be totally dishonourable if Britain were to welsh on her obligations in respect of a limited number of immigrants, the more particularly since those obligations devolve upon Britain as part of her post-imperial responsibilities?

Mr. Jenkins: I assure my hon. Friend and the House that I have no intention of welshing on any obligations at all. My hon. Friend's historical analysis is correct. It arose, I think, from the arrangements made by Lord Duncan Sandys in the early 1960s. It presents a problem, but I am convinced that the way that we have proceeded with this substantial but not huge increase, in a limited and orderly way, has enabled us, at any rate so far, to accommodate the Malawi Asians within the total of vouchers that we announced some time ago. That has proved to be the correct approach to this limited, but difficult, problem. We are determined to discharge our duties both to the individuals concerned and to the people in this country.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), may I ask hon. Members not to use the expression "to welsh" as long as I am in the Chair? It is highly


offensive to the people from where I come.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw that unfortunate word. As a Scot, I know no other.

Mr. Speaker: To scotch is not as bad as to welsh.

Mr. Whitelaw: Does the Home Secretary agree that in handling what I accept is an extremely difficult problem, it is very important to take account of the strong feelings of the British people? It is impossible to pretend that when the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) says that "enough is enough", he is not reflecting the mood of the British people. We have to take that very seriously.
Nobody wishes to welsh—I am sorry Mr. Speaker; I beg your pardon. No one has any intention of going back on the obligations that we have to British passport holders, but does the Home Secretary agree that Lord Carr said, after the Ugandan Asian problem, which he carried through correctly, that any further influx of that order could not be handled by a British Government in that way? Was Lord Carr not correct? In having orderly entry under the voucher system, is it not possible to make as certain as possible that those who come have means of support and somewhere to go when they arrive?

Mr. Jenkins: On the subject of the unfortunate word "welsh", I have every reason to be as sensitive about this as you, Mr. Speaker. But the Oxford Dictionary says that the word can be spelt with a "c", and is a northern racing term. Therefore I do not react as strongly as you do.
On the more serious matter, I take the view that it is my duty as Home Secretary and the duty of the House, to take account of the natural reactions and feelings of our people. But it is important to explain the facts of the situation to them and to guide those reactions into rational and humanitarian channels wherever possible. I hope and believe that we can contain this problem. The number of United Kingdom passport holders remaining in Malawi is relatively limited.

Immigrants (Dependants)

Mr. Budgen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has now made of the number of dependants eligible to enter the United Kingdom from the New Commonwealth.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: It is not the practice to publish estimates of this kind, and any forecasts of future immigration would necessarily be speculative since numbers arriving may be affected by a wide variety of factors.

Mr. Budgen: Will the Home Secretary tell us whether he agrees with the view of Home Office officials as reported in The Times on 26th April, to the effect that the queue of dependants from the new Commonwealth, eligible for entry into this country, is never-ending? If this is so, will he tell the House what he intends to do about it? Does he have any plans for redefining the rules concerning the entry of dependants in a more restrictive way?

Mr. Jenkins: One should not assume that Press reports, even in The Times, about the views attributed to Home Office officials, are necessarily accurate. I take the view that this is a complex subject. It is one on which there is a debate on Monday, arising from a Private Member's motion, and I propose to intervene in that debate. I shall deal with this matter in the course of my speech.

Mr. Spearing: Notwithstanding what the Home Secretary has just said, there is considerable concern throughout the country as a whole, and especially in the older areas of cities. Much of this concern is based on wrong information. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that he gets the right information across on Monday? While ensuring that there are no unfair repercussions on immigrants already here, will he make sure also that there are no unfair repercussions on the people in the older areas of cities, who have been there for many years?

Mr. Jenkins: I hesitate to predict whether, in the course of a single speech, I can attain all the substantial objectives that my hon. Friend has outlined, but I shall try seriously to deal with these matters.

Sir David Renton: As there are still large numbers of immigrants coming from the Commonwealth and Pakistan, which is not a member of the Commonwealth, would it not be better to refuse those people, thus making it more feasible to accept the holders of United Kingdom passports?

Mr. Jenkins: We are maintaining very strict control over these numbers, and there is virtually no admission from the Commonwealth or Pakistan for new heads of families. Almost all the immigrants coming now are those who are entitled to do so under the rules as they originally existed and were confirmed by the 1971 Act, enabling heads of families to bring in their dependants—wives and children under 18.
I would not contemplate going back on this undertaking by saying that we should continue in this country indefinitely with divided families. That would not assist our problems. But I agree there is a limit to the rate of absorption that we can maintain.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the Home Secretary convey to his departmental officers the gratitude of all hon. Members about the way in which they deal with inquiries from families whose dependants come here? Will he discuss with the Foreign Secretary the waiting time in Bombay and Islamabad which is now 18 months, with a view to expediting the procedures?

Mr. Jenkins: We have made some changes, in order to expedite these procedures. Inevitably it is our right to have some degree of control there, as the overwhelming majority of immigrants are families who are entitled to join the heads of families already here, and inevitably there is pressure from those who cannot be members of families but who try to come here under a false guise. One is bound to appreciate that with the difference in the standard of living of those here and those remaining behind, a degree of pressure is inevitable. It means that we have a sieve, but we must try to make it work faster. But as a sieve is inevitable it must take a certain amount of time.

Psychiatric Patients (Voting Rights)

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is

satisfied with the arrangements for voting rights of patients in psychiaric hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John: The 1973–74 Speaker's Conference recommended that patients resident in mental hospitals should be able to use the hospital as their qualifying address for the purpose of electoral registration. The Government have now accepted this recommendation in principle, subject to the satisfactory resolution of certain practical problems that have been identified by an interdepartmental working party set up on the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Flannery: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he accept from me that among the best of the community health councils—modesty forbids me from admitting that one is in Sheffield—there is very deep concern about this matter? Can an overall review of the democratisation of, and voting in, such institutions be undertaken?

Mr. John: My hon. Friend will know from my earlier answer that the working party is looking at the practical problems, the principle having been accepted by the Government. It is now consulting other parties and specialist bodies in mental health to see how these practical problems can be overcome.

Mr. Christopher Price: There will be a wide welcome for this move, since many patients in psychiatric hospitals are there for no better reason than that their relatives have deserted them and they have nowhere else to live. There is some urgency about sorting out the final details. May we have a date when final implementation can be expected?

Mr. John: I cannot do that, because a satisfactory solution is often preferable to a quick unsatisfactory solution. As for the question of principle, I was a member of the Speaker's Conference and I have no hesitation in saying that we found the case compellingly made out. That is why we made that recommendation.

Winson Green Prison (Education Facilities)

Mrs. Knight: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what


steps he is intending to take to improve the prison education situation in Winson Green Prison, Birmingham.

Mr. John: The education programme was restarted last week on a limited basis. Available resources are unlikely to permit a significant improvement in the near future.

Mrs. Knight: Does the Minister recall that Command Paper No. 4214, which deals with education and vocational services, says that all offenders over 21 have to attend a certain number of classes each week? Does he appreciate the situation at Winson Green Prison, where just under 900 offenders are locked in their rooms for 23 hours a day, receiving no education but for the limited amount that the Minister has mentioned? Does he accept that that is far from satisfactory?

Mr. John: I accept what the hon. Member said about the figures. The education programme has been restarted, but "available resources" means two things. It means the money involved—and I am sure that the hon. Member joins me in expressing concern about the level of public expenditure. It also means the availability of prison staff, who, for example, are often heavily engaged in conducting people to court for hearings. That is one of the problems.

Mr. Grocott: Since the education service in prisons represents only one aspect of attempts to rehabilitate people, and since that is unsatisfactory, does my hon. Friend agree that all facilities designed to rehabilitate the prisoner—the education service, the pre-release employment scheme and other such arrangements—urgently need extension and improvement? If not, prison will continue to be what it is at the moment—a university of crime.

Mr. John: A great deal is being done in order' to proceed along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. There are, however, certain priorities in our present economic situation and it would be foolish for me to mislead the House into believing that desirable projects do not have to be deferred whilst we tackle the main objectives.

European Assembly (Direct Elections)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what

estimate he has made of the length of time the Boundary Commission would take to draw up the boundaries of the constituencies in the event of direct elections to a European Assembly.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The length of time that the Boundary Commissions would take to draw up constituency boundaries for direct elections to the European Assembly depends on the terms of reference and procedure which Parliament gives them in the legislation. I look forward to hearing the views of the Select Committee on this point.

Mr. Marten: That is an eminently sensible answer. May we have an assurance that when the Boundary Commissions come into operation they will operate in precisely the same way for direct elections as for the ordinary constituency boundary changes, and that there will be no short cuts in order to expedite direct elections?

Mr. Jenkins: No, I cannot give any such assurance. As I told the House quite firmly in the debate on the White Paper on direct elections, it would be desirable for the constituencies to be drawn up by the Boundary Commissions rather than it being done by Parliament, which is perhaps not best suited to such a job. That being so, it is essential, if we are to meet the timetable—if that remains as 1978—that the commissions should operate with existing "building blocks". They cannot go back and start afresh. They must take existing constituency units and make recommendations as to how they can be put together for direct elections.

Mr. Heffer: I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend that he will take into consideration the views of the Boundary Commissions. Is he aware that the Labour Party has not yet taken a view on the question of direct elections? Therefore, will he consult not only the Labour Party but the other parties before any decision is taken by the Government either about boundaries or about the principle of direct elections?

Mr. Jenkins: There have been consultations with the parties, but I think it must be the constitutional position that the decision in principle about whether we should have direct elections should be taken by the Government and


endorsed by the House, and not by any party.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The Home Secretary refers to using the existing pattern of constituency boundaries as a basis. Would it not give greater confidence in the exercise if he expedited the redrawing of constituency boundaries for the House of Commons and corrected the grotesque disparities which at present exist in the size of electorates?

Mr. Jenkins: There are, of course, conflicting considerations to be borne in mind here. There is, first, the undesirability of constant flux in the map of parliamentary constituencies. That affects the whole country. There is also the undesirability of continuing with constituencies that are grossly larger than other constituencies. A balance must be struck between these two considerations, and I believe that that will be done sensibly by sticking to the timetable laid down by the Boundary Commissions that they should report between 10 and 15 years after their last general reports. The next reports should begin to be available after 1979.

Mr. Jay: Does my right hon. Friend think that before the House takes a final decision other bodies should be consulted, as was done by the Government with the TUC in the case of the incomes policy?

Mr. Jenkins: Of course other bodies should be consulted. There has been close consultation with the party organisations. The Select Committee will no doubt take account of such views. These consultations can be held again and discussed by the House before it takes a final decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) seemed to be suggesting more than that, and that some other body should take the decision.

Mr. Heffer: I did not say that.

Mr. Carlisle: Does the Home Secretary agree that if the constituencies for the European Parliament are to be made up of groupings of existing parliamentary constituencies, that could be done very quickly by the Boundary Commissions?

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, I think it could be done quite quickly and ably, and done better by an independent body. If I have

misrepresented my hon. Friend the Member for Walton, I apologise.

Mr. MacFarquhar: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about attempting to build on existing boundaries. Will he do his best to ensure that the European Parliament constituency boundaries do not cross over the original Westminster boundaries? If he does not, he will add to the problems of devolution.

Mr. Jenkins: I take note of that point, although in a sense points of that sort—the Government having taken the view that a Select Committee would be an advantage—are more relevant for Select Committee consideration.

Heads of State (Visits)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the arrangements, which fall within his departmental responsibilities, for official visits from overseas Heads of State.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Yes, Sir. The police make appropriate arrangements for such occasions.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the protests by many people, including political and religious leaders of various persuasions, against torture and violations of human rights in Brazil, was it not provocative and an affront to all who believe in democracy to allow the Fascist dictator of Brazil to ride in state through the streets of London? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the advisability of permitting this sort of shameful spectacle?

Mr. Jenkins: As my hon. Friend is aware this question is not primarily one for me, although I am willing to take the responsibility for answering it. The demonstrations that occurred were of a mild nature and the Commissioner of Police assures me that the policing arrangements during the State visit were not in any way abnormal, compared to arrangements for State visits from a wide range of countries. If we were to prohibit everything against which people demonstrate, nothing much would happen in this country.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Is the Home Secretary aware that those hon. Members on both sides of the House who know enough about Brazil, unlike some hon.


Members, warmly welcome the attitude that the Government have taken to the visit by President Geisel, which can do nothing but good for the cause of parliamentary democracy in Brazil and for Great Britain's trade?

Mr. Jenkins: I am all in favour of supplementary questions ranging reasonably widely. I am in favour of not keeping my own nose too buried in the recesses of the Home Office. But the hon. Gentleman is getting much too wide of the original Question.

Detention Centres (Remissions of Sentence)

Mr. Terry Walker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the effect on establishments of the increase in remission to detainees in detention centres.

Mr. John: The increase in remission, which applied only to boys under the age of 17 when they were sentenced to detention centre training, reduced the normal training time in the six junior centres from eight and a half weeks to six and a half weeks. The wardens and staff of the junior centres have worked hard to adapt training programmes to the shorter period of custody, but it is too soon to make a definite assessment of the effects of this change.

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the increase in remission has put great pressures on the organisation and staff at the centres? Will he ensure that the opinions of the staff are taken into account when the subject comes up for its annual review?

Mr. John: Yes. A conference was held in March to consider this problem and a further conference to consider its effects will be held in September.

Mr. Sims: Will the Minister consider whether his action is justified? Has not the procedure of unilaterally increasing remission at detention centres undermined the authority of the courts that imposed the original sentences?

Mr. John: A definitive assessment will be made as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is wide of the mark. The primary reason

for the increase in remission is to relieve chronic overcrowding. The action is generally in line with my right hon. Friend's policy that young offenders should spend shorter periods in Prison Department custody.

Contraband (Police Powers)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the powers he possesses concerning the role of the police in the detention of people entering the country in the possession of contraband.

Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend possesses no such powers.

Mr. Adley: Do the police have clear and unambiguous powers to apprehend, without prior reference to Customs, port or health authorities, people suspected of being about to break or of breaking, the animal quarantine regulations? Much of the problem is likely to arise in small harbours rather than in the large ports on which the Government seem to be concentrating most of their efforts.

Dr. Summerskill: The responsibility for directing the police officers in the enforcement of the law rests with the chief officers of police concerned. The principal rôle in enforcing the law on contraband is performed by Customs officers, but the police co-operate closely with them. If the hon. Gentleman has particulars of any local difficulty, perhaps he will inform the chief officer of police in the area concerned.

Shops Act 1950

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been received by his Department seeking amendments to the Shops Act 1950.

Dr. Summerskill: So far this year about 60 letters on the working of the Act have been received from local authorities, shopkeepers and others. The majority favoured relaxing restrictions on Sunday trading.

Mr. Madden: Does the Minister agree that the level of representation demonstrates that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the working of the legislation, particularly as it affects Sunday trading? When will the stupid anomalies


in the legislation affecting Sunday trading be swept away?

Dr. Summerskill: Although the hon. Gentleman may reflect the public view to some extent, he does not reflect the parliamentary view. When we last voted on amending the Shops Act the vote was 159 against and 151 for. There is no general agreement on the way in which the Shops Act should be amended, and the Government cannot find time in their present legislative programme to do so.

Mr. Michael Latham: Irrespective of the arguments about Sunday trading, will the Minister consult the Department of Environment in order to get something done about those Sunday markets that continue to trade without planning permission?

Dr. Summerskill: Local authorities are responsible for implementing the Shops Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Mr. Lawson: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any further proposals for changes in the allocation of ministerial responsibilities.

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any further proposals for changes in the allocation of ministerial responsibilities.

Mr. Aitken: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any further proposals for changes in the allocation of ministerial responsibility.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): No.

Mr. Lawson: Would it not be a good idea if the Prime Minister were to give to one of his Ministers the responsibility for investigating his redeployed predecessor's smear campaigns? Meanwhile, can the Prime Minister say whether the security services have discovered any evidence whatever to justify the serious allegations by his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) of improper interference by South African organisations in British political life—yes or no?

Mr. Callaghan: I am all in favour of the hon. Gentleman asking me a ques-

tion, but I am not going to allow him to give the reply as well. Those of us who have known my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) for many years know that he has a great capacity for illuminating a truth long before it becomes apparent to other people. In this case there is no doubt that as the investigation proceeds, and despite the persiflage that surrounds much of it, it will be found that attacks are being made against individual members of the Liberal Party. As to who is making them, that is not something that I can go into at this stage. The security authorities are investigating reports that have been made, but there is no evidence, apart from what is appearing about Mr. Russouw, to connect the South African Government with the campaign that has been going on. It was clear that Mr. Russouw exceeded the expectations of a diplomat in any country.

Mr. Pavitt: On a more practical and less political note, will my right hon. Friend take a long clear look at the large departments of ministerial responsibility that have existed since 1968, with a view, for example, to separating the Department of Health and Social Security into two Departments?

The Prime Minister: I had not thought of doing that. I am against scrambling omelettes and unscrambling them again. A certain amount of stability in Civil Service organisation is a good thing, if people are to know where they stand. If there were a deficiency in organisation I should certainly want to review it to see whether changes should be made.

Mr. MacGregor: In view of the continuing decline of the pound since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, will he consider appointing a Minister of Cabinet rank to deal with public expenditure and cutting down the borrowing requirement, which is the obvious reason for the lack of confidence in his economic policies?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry if I have made all that impact in six weeks. I have a feeling that there are more deep-rooted causes for the position of sterling. Those causes extend over many years, when both my party and the hon. Gentleman's party were in power. The matter should not be treated as if it were a game


of bingo. It is a serious question. The integrity of our currency concerns us all —or it should do. It is therefore my concern to ensure that economic and financial policies command support, not only at home but overseas. We are making great progress in that direction.

Mr. Ron Thomas: In view of the alarming increase in import penetration, the outflow of capital, the speculation against sterling and the inter-relationship between those factors, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of one Minister being responsible for both trade and payments policies, so that we may begin to plan trade policy linked with the balance of payments and the protection of sterling?

The Prime Minister: These policies are co-ordinated. There is bound to be an increase in the level of imports as there is economic recovery, because this country depends so much on imports of raw materials, commodities and semi-manufactures. I am glad to say that exports are going ahead very well. I trust that that trend will be maintained. We have the capacity to maintain it, and the price is right. I hope that we can now achieve delivery at the right time. Coordination is the responsibility of the Cabinet as a whole. We are carrying it out.

Mr. Aitken: Will the Prime Minister consider appointing a Minister with special responsibility for immigration, in order to reconcile the apparent differences of policy that have arisen between the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on this subject? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while Home Office Ministers have been saying that there will be no increase in the 5,000 vouchers issuable to East African Asians, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said at the Dispatch Box on Monday that there might be certain circumstances in which the number of vouchers would have to be increased? Who is in charge?

The Prime Minister: I am.

Mr. Grimond: Reverting to the Prime Minister's original answer, as we all agree with his assessment of his predecessor's

capabilities, will he assure us that after the completion of the inquiries, which are of great interest to my party, there will be a statement on exactly what has been going on in South Africa in this matter?

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly consider that. Nobody in any political party should be under the threat of suspicion if it can be cleared. In some of these matters security considerations are involved, and it would not be the custom or practice for us to depart from that, but I shall suggest to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary that he should consider whether it is possible to make a statement in due course. It may take a little time.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Will my right hon. Friend consider transferring some of the powers of the Lord Chancellor to the Attorney-General, so that there may be more accountability to the House for matters with which the Lord Chancellor is at present concerned?

The Prime Minister: If there is a particular illustration of the need for that, I shall be glad to look into it, but in one of my previous incarnations as Home Secretary I was always very careful to avoid intervening between the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor, and I recommend that caution to my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Thatcher: As the Prime Minister says very firmly that he is in charge, may I ask him whether he now intends to take personal responsibility for matters concerning Rhodesia or whether he will leave them to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and to the Home Secretary, as regards British passport holders? The Prime Minister will be aware of the urgency of the question, because on the tape there is a statement that the British High Commission in Lusaka has repeated previous advice that British citizens should consider leaving Rhodesia. Will he therefore say what contingency plans have been made, should any such people wish to come to this country, and what diplomatic initiatives he intends to take to avoid bloodshed?

The Prime Minister: I think that the distribution of functions is clearly understood. I certainly do not wish to intervene in it.
As I read the story that appeared on the tape, I understood that the High Commissioner had been asked a question to which he gave the reply given on many previous occasions. There was no new statement of policy, and I do not think that the right hon. lady meant to indicate that there was. It is obvious that since sanctions we have not been in a position to give consular protection to British citizens in Rhodesia. That situation has not changed. As I understand it—from the same information as that which the right hon. Lady has—the High Commissioner, in reply to a question, pointed out once again that those who felt in need of that protection would have to leave the country if they were to get it.
As for emergency arrangements, the Government make contingency plans for a number of events, and the right hon. lady and the House may take it that the subject of United Kingdom passport holders in Rhodesia is under review.

Oral Answers to Questions — RABIES

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will reallocated responsibility so as to make one Minister responsible for coordination of anti-rabies measures.

The Prime Minister: That responsibility, in so far as the campaign against rabies in animals is concerned, already rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Adley: I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. I realise that technical matters are handled by the Ministry of Agriculture, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Office has decided to see a delegation of Members from all parties about the police powers in this connection; that the Customs officers are responsible to the Treasury; and that questions of notification of the regulations for overseas visitors are in the hands of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? In view of the widespread concern, particularly in coastal constituencies, will the Prime Minister consider giving one Minister, if only temporarily, wider powers than he might normally enjoy to co-ordinate overall the work of dealing with the problems connected with rabies?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have acquainted myself with a number of the facts on this situation. The hon. Gentleman's constituency is clearly one that would be immediately affected. I understand that a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture will be present at the meeting with the deputation that the hon. Member will be leading. The various aspects of control must be in the hands of local agencies. Up to now, I am satisfied that there is co-ordination. However, a number of aspects of the problem need to be examined. For example, if I may revert to an earlier Question, I think that we should consider the possibility of making offences under the rabies legislation arrestable. I do not know what answer we should come up with, but that is the kind of issue that I am having examined. I hope that we can find some answers to it. I do not think that any hon. Member is in doubt about the gravity of the matter.

Mr. Corbett: In view of the seriousness of the threat of the introduction of the disease here, will my right hon. Friend suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that he make a ministerial broadcast and a personal appeal to so-called pet lovers not to take an appalling risk?

The Prime Minister: That is a very good suggestion, and I shall pass it on. The broadcast would probably have to be on the BBC overseas service, although clearly people going abroad and returning also need to have this information. A number of matters are being considered, such as suggestions to port officers about directing boats with animals aboard to certain specified moorings. That is the kind of thing that could be done. The Government will certainly take action to draw attention, as far as is possible, to the dreadful consequences of the disease coming to this country.

Mr. Costain: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that there are reports of rabies within a 100 miles of my constituency, and that Folkestone and Dover have the biggest passenger traffic of any port in Great Britain? The Minister of Agriculture's responsibility comes in after the disease has broken out, and we must wish to prevent it. Could not the Prime Minister arrange for the local police forces to have special powers of inspection and


to help the Customs and immigration people?

The Prime Minister: The police have powers. Questions were asked about them 20 minutes or so ago, and were answered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Whether they should have more powers is a question to which we are giving consideration. There is a maximum fine of £400 on summary conviction, and on indictment there is the prospect of imprisonment. These are serious penalties and I think that they are adequate. It is now a matter of ensuring that those who try to smuggle in animals are caught.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does not my right hon. Friend feel that offences might be much more effectively prevented if they were made subject to much more severe penalties—say, a fine of £1,000 or a minimum of five years' imprisonment?

The Prime Minister: I am never quite sure where the deterrent ceases to apply. I should not like to go into the question whether more serious penalties would have the consequences that my hon. Friend suggests. It is important that we should alarm people and awaken them to the consequences of the introduction of the disease into this country.

Mr. Burden: Does the Prime Minister agree that the many proposals put to him this afternoon indicate the gravity with which the matter is viewed? Will he therefore set up a committee which can act very quickly and can consider publicising the dangers and producing a cohesive programme that can be brought out quickly to deal with them?

The Prime Minister: There is a cohesive programme and the departmental responsibilities are properly coordinated. There is no confusion about responsibilities as between the various local agents who are concerned with this matter, whether they be Customs and Excise officials, police, or people from the Department of Health who are concerned about rabies in human beings. Only if we set up a special department, with special agents to deal with the matter, would there be complete co-ordination. I am sure that it is right to leave it to the local

agencies, provided they have proper direction.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Does the Prime Minister agree that, however important the measures taken at home may be, it is far more important to ensure that the disease never arrives in this country? As to co-ordination, is the Prime Minister satisfied that enough is being done at foreign ports to reduce the possibility of the disease coming into this country? Does not this emphasise yet again the need for proper consideration of the matter, and proper co-ordination?

The Prime Minister: There is proper co-ordination in the matter. The local agencies understand their powers and responsibilities perfectly well.
As to the position in foreign ports, I am not able to give an authoritative answer. I am told that at the end of 1975 the nearest point in France that the disease had reached was about 80 miles from the coast of France, although one or two isolated cases have since been reported a few miles further west. The control measures on the Continent are different from ours, because on the Continent there is an endemic situation.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our task is to try to keep the disease as far away as we can. But I regret that we cannot stop people trying to smuggle animals in, except, perhaps, by bringing home to them the serious consequences of their actions.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that one of the strongest recommendations of the Waterhouse Committee, which went into the whole question in great detail, was that the port authorities around our coast should be greatly strengthened? Will he investigate this and ensure that this action is taken?

The Prime Minister: I hope that some of these questions will be directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Now that my right hon. Friend has joined me on the Front Bench. I feel like Wellington when Blucher arrived. Perhaps hon. Members will table some of these detailed questions to my right hon. Friend. If they are not satisfied with his answers, I am sure that he will let me know.

RHODESIA (SPORTS TEAMS)

The following Written Questions stood upon the Order Paper

Mr. RIPPON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it was by his authority that the Minister of Sport banned Rhodesian holders of British passports from entering the United Kingdom to play cricket; under what power the ban was imposed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. URWIN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Rhodesian sports teams have toured the United Kingdom since UDI; how many have sought to do so; and what Government action has been taken to prevent such tours, and with what results.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Denis Howell, to answer Written Questions Nos. 118 and 133.

The Minister of State for Sport and Recreation (Mr. Denis Howell): Successive Governments have made it quite clear to the Sports Council that following the decisions of the British Parliament to declare the Rhodesian UDI to be illegal, and the international support for this stand both at the United Nations and by international sporting bodies such as the International Olympic Committee and FIFA, it would be quite incompatible with these decisions to allow normal sporting encounters to take place with Rhodesia.
In furtherance of this policy, the previous Administration intervened on several occasions to stop visits by sporting teams to and from Rhodesia. In 1971 they stopped the entry into this country of two Rhodesians—including an African—for the World Ploughing Contest, and in the same year they intervened to secure the withdrawal of a Rhodesian team from the Admirals' Cup. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) did well in spite of that.
In 1972, following similar intervention, a Rhodesian team withdrew from the World Bowls Championship, and a proposed visit by a British hockey team to Rhodesia was cancelled. In May 1973 the Womens Squash Rackets Association, after consultation with the then Government, cancelled a proposed visit to

Rhodesia by a British team, and in February 1974, after similar consultation, the Amateur Basketball Association decided not to send a team to Rhodesia.
So far as is known, two teams, one of hockey players and one of cricket players, have toured this country during the last two years, but on both occasions neither the Government nor the governing bodies of the sport concerned were consulted, and only learned of these tours after those teams had returned home.
The powers under which the Government can act are contained in the Southern Rhodesia (Immigration Act 1971) Order 1972.

Mr. Urwin: I thank my right hon. Friend for the information which he has given to the House on this very important subject. I am sure that it can bring no joy to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who surely had ministerial responsibility for at least some part of the time to which my right hon. Friend has referred.
Will my right hon. Friend accept that there are many people, certainly on the Government side of the House, who have no quarrel with sanctions imposed in sporting activities? Indeed, I go so far as to say that this policy would be wholly compatible with the trade embargoes operated since UDI. My right hon. Friend has referred—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister did not make a statement. He answered a Question. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask a question.

Mr. Rippon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not normal for a Minister who is to answer a Written Question to give notice to the hon. Member who put it down?

Mr. Howell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My office got in touch with the office of the right hon. and learned Gentleman at about 17 o'clock, and I was informed that he would be told that I was seeking to answer these Questions at 3.30 p.m.

Mr. Cryer: Mr. Cryer rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting very untidy. An hon. Member is asking a question.

Mr. Urwin: Will my right hon. Friend say something more in regard to the latter part of his Answer, in which he referred to two teams which had come to this country without the knowledge of the Government? Will he say something about those tours, which appear to have been surreptitiously organised, and indicate what information he received about the Ridgeback's tour?

Mr. Howell: It is quite true, as my right hon. Friend has said, that following the previous practice of Labour and Conservative Governments to write to governing bodies and say that such tours are inadvisable, there seems to have been a change of practice, in that governing bodies are not now being consulted. That is how these teams have got into this country without knowledge.
We were aware of the Ridgebacks' tour because the Rhodesia Herald of 29th April carried a statement which made it clear that there had been a public appeal in Rhodesia for funds to send the team here and that eight members of the side had played for the Rhodesian national team. I made it clear last week that they would not be allowed to play in this country, whatever pseudonym they used.

Mr. Monro: Is it not right that decisions on touring teams should be resolved by the responsible national bodies and not by the last-minute intervention of the Minister of State for Sport and Recreation? Would the Minister not agree that this tour of club cricketers, who can come here as individuals, has been blown up out of all proportion by the Minister's action during the last week? Would he give his interpretation of these powers under the 1968 and 1972 legislation in relation to sport?

Mr. Howell: I think it very odd that, in the seven days in which I have been lambasted by the Press and the Opposition, not one word has come from any official spokesman of the Opposition, bearing in mind that they acted similarly on six occasions. On this occasion we acted at the last minute because it was the first we had heard of the matter. Had we known earlier, we would have acted as the Conservative

Government acted. The only case in which powers have been used to prevent someone from entering was when an African was coming here for the World Ploughing Contest.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that many people in this House, to whom it is not sufficient excuse for Government action that the Conservative Party committed some ludicrous folly first—they would no doubt have received a Russian cricket team with acclamation if the Russians were foolish enough to play cricket—believe that it is time we dropped this attitude and accepted that people who want to come here to play games may not be very important and should be allowed to come?

Mr. Howell: That is an understandable point of view and may be valid, but it is not a point of view previously advanced by the Liberal Benches in this House, or in another place, when the Conservative Government defended their decision over ploughmen. The fact is that Parliament and the courts have declared this regime to be illegal and Parliament has imposed severe penalties on business men who trade with Rhodesia. It is surely ludicrous at the same time to play games with Rhodesia.

Mr. Faulds: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that there is nothing very sporting about racial discrimination and the consequent human—[HON. MEMBERS: "Take one!"] I usually have my words well. Does the Minister not agree that there is nothing sporting about racial discrimination and the consequent human deprivation? Would it not be advisable for some of the permanently immature schoolboys opposite to go back to their peculiar schools in order to relearn the whole ethos of cricket?

Mr. Howell: I agree with my hon. Friend that the only judgment of a sportsman should be on merits and not on grounds of racial origin. I must say in fairness to Rhodesia that they have sports organised on a multi-racial basis. Therefore, the case should not be confused with South Africa. The case against Rhodesia involves the illegality of its regime. If people persist in living an illegal existence, they cannot expect the normal social niceties of life to be made available to them.

Mr. Hastings: Will the Minister recognise that this decision and the action to which he has referred are typical of the spite manifested for so long by the Foreign Office department responsible for relations with Rhodesia, as many of us who have tried to follow this matter are so tragically aware? What kind of contribution will this demeaning and petty decision make towards eventual agreement with Rhodesia?

Mr. Howell: I do not believe that Conservative Ministers who took the decisions in earlier years on this matter were spiteful or mean in any degree. It is a little sad that no Conservative Member raised these subjects at that time. All that has happened is that my Conservative predecessors were more effective than I in catching people coming into this country, but, having caught them, I have been more honest than they were in letting people know about it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Leader of the House kindly state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows
MONDAY 24TH MAY—Private Members' motions until 7 o'clock.
Proceedings on the Seychelles Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Northern Ireland Orders on Road Traffic (Drivers' Ages and Hours of Work) and Sex Discrimination.
Motion on the New Towns (Limit of Borrowing) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has announced opposed Private Business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
TUESDAY 25TH MAY, WEDNESDAY 26TH MAY and THURSDAY 27TH MAY—Remaining stages of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill.
FRIDAY 28TH MAY—It will be proposed that the House should rise for the Whitsun Adjournment until Monday, 7th June.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? Since we are not to have an economic debate next week, will he say whether a White Paper will be published next week or possibly after next week on the pay restraint agreement?
Secondly, as the situation in Rhodesia is becoming even more urgent and the arrangement for British passport holders is not yet clear, will he arrange some time soon for the House to have a foreign affairs debate with particular reference to Rhodesia?

Mr. Foot: There is to be a debate on foreign affairs. I am not saying that it will take place in the next week or two, but we were thinking of having in the forthcoming pericd a full day's debate on foreign affairs, and Rhodesia would arise as a subject for discussion in that debate, if desired. If a statement is required on that subject, we shall no doubt consider a request beforehand.
As for the right hon. Lady's request for a White Paper, I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to say whether there will be a White Paper on the subject, but I should have thought that there was a probability. We shall give the House full notice of the. situation.

Mr. Ashley: Is it not quite wrong for the chairman of the Royal Commission on the Legal Profession to be selected from an allied profession which works very closely with the legal profession and which shares its general ethos? Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate so that some of us can propose that the members of the Royal Commission should be strong, tough, radical and impartial men, who can examine deeply this well-entrenched and secretive profession?

Mr. Foot: I am sure that my hon. Friend, judging by his supplementary question, would make an admirable member of the Royal Commission. However, I am sure that he did not ask his supplementary question in the form of an application for such a position, and I would inform him that there are methods available by which representations can be made about those who are to compose commissions. I hope that my hon. Friend and others, if they wish, will make such representations to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Sir John Hall: Does the Leader of the House recall that before the beginning of the main business yesterday the House heard three statements and that we then had points of order and an opposed Ten-Minute Bill? That meant that the main debate did not get under way until 5.11 p.m. and that, as a consequence, we lost debating time of one hour and forty minutes? Does he not agree that on a Supply Day it was a little unfortunate that so many hon. Members were shut out of the debate by so many Government statements? Is it not possible in future to ensure that the number of Government statements are severely limited so that time is not taken out of an important debate?

Mr. Foot: I agree that we should do everything in our power to avoid the situation that occurred yesterday whereby so much lime is taken with statements of that character. There were reasons in each case why those statements were made yesterday, although 1 shall not go into the details of each case. I agree that we should try to avoid a situation in which too many statements are made in such circumstances.

Mr. Palmer: Will my right hon. Friend say when time can be provided to debate the important subject of energy conservation, particularly in view of the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, to which after a period of ten months the Government have made no reply?

Mr. Foot: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that we cannot have such a debate in the very near future. I shall look at the report and see whether there is an opportunity at a later date to have such a debate.

Mr. Hooson: Will the right hon. Gentleman, after the short recess and before the end of the Session, find time to debate Early-Day Motion No. 109 relating to a moratorium on whaling, which has been signed by 156 Members of all parties, since it is clearly an important, even though perhaps a narrow, issue?

[That this House is of opinion that the Government should impose a ban on the import of sperm whale products into this country and take all other practical steps to impose a moratorium on whaling for

a period of 10 years as an essential conservation measure of great importance to mankind in general.]

Mr. Foot: I do not think that it is a narrow issue but it is an extremely important one. I do not detract from the importance of the subject. Indeed, if I were free to do so, I would have signed that motion myself. I am not sure whether we can find time to debate the matter, but I shall examine the point.

Mr. Reid: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the growing concern in Scotland over the timing of the Government's devolution proposals? Will he give a firm date on the form to be taken by that announcement? Will he comment on today's Press report that the Prime Minister is to visit Scotland, no doubt in an attempt to pre-empt the SNP conference on the subject?

Mr. Foot: It would not be just a matter of pre-empting that event, but of completely overshadowing it. I am sure that that was a wrong choice of words by the hon. Gentleman. As for giving the House a statement about the date of the devolution proposals, a statement will be made, although I cannot yet give him a date. I am sure that it will be as soon as possible.

Mr. Cryer: May I draw my right lion. Friend's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 389 regarding the doctrinaire attitude of Conservative councillors at Tameside? Does he not agree that it is urgent that the House should debate this matter because the motion has been signed by a number of Conservative Members of Parliament and condemns the attitude of the Conservative majority at Tameside in disrupting comprehensive plans?

[That this House deplores the continuing uncertainty caused by the threat of disruptive and precipitous action by the Conservative Council in the Metropolitan District of Tameside whereby the educational progress of thousands of children is jeopardised, the functioning of schools is endangered by the threat of an immediate return to 11+ examination, the career opportunities of many teachers are damaged and scarce public resources allocated to build a more viable nonselective system of secondary education may be misused, especially when the


system due to be implemented from September gives nearly 90 per cent. of parents the first choice of secondary school for their children.]

It is serious that hon. Members opposite have signed the motion, because they are either betraying their own party or they cannot read—in which case there is a crisis of education in the public school system.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should inform the House that my attention has been drawn to the fact that in the Notice of Motions circulating this morning, the names of more than 50 hon. Members which should have appeared under the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) to a motion were printed in error under the motion itself. This matter will of course be set right. It is not the fault of the hon. Members concerned.

Mr. Foot: I fully share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Keiehley (Mr. Cryer) and those hon. Members who consciously signed the motion about the Tameside situation, which carries serious risks for the educational opportunities of some 3,000 children and for relations between the local education authority and its teachers. Some hasty and ill-considered things have been said by individuals. It is essential to know what the authority proposes to do, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has asked for such a statement to be supplied to him. I believe that it is on that basis that we should look at the matter further. It is extremely serious for the children involved.

Mr. William Hamilton: When does my right hon. Friend expect to announce the names of the members of the Select Committee on Procedure? Have the Government already fixed up the chairmanship of the Committee?

Mr. Foot: I do not like the words "fixed up". I do not know where my hon. Friend gets this indelicate vocabulary. I very much hope that the names of members of the Committee will be put on the Order Paper today or tomorrow. The chairman has been approached on the same basis as the chairmen of all

previous such Committees have been approached.

Mr. Peyton: We are so pleased to hear that children are to be protected from doctrinaire attitudes. I trust that the Leader of the House will communicate that fact to the Secretary of State for Education.
There are many amendments, a great many of which emanate from the Government side of the House, to the Police Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we go rather late in our consideration of the Bill tonight, there is no need to continue and to drive the House into the ground and that further time may have to be provided?
Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir J. Hall), it seems wrong that Government statements should be repeatedly taking time out of an Opposition day. I take the point made by the Leader of the House about the circumstances yesterday, but on Tuesday there were two routine statements which could well have been answered by a Written Reply without eating into the time of the House.
Are we making progress on the question of the composition of Select Committees? There may have been discussions. If so, I hope that they will prove fruitful and that before we rise the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make a statement to the House.

Mr. Foot: I very much hope that we shall make further progress on the question of the composition of Select Committees. We are having further discussions, and I, too, hope that they will prove fruitful. If agreement is reached about how we should proceed, I shall make a statement to the House. I fully appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern.
However, I do not think that his remarks about Government statements were justified. especially when he said that the statements on Tuesday were of a secondary character and need not have been made on the Floor of the House. One of the statements was about the asbestos inquiry—a matter on which great concern has been expressed in many parts of the House. If we had made that statement in a Written Reply, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, I am sure that he would have been the first to leap to


the Dispatch Box to criticise us for making that decision.
I recognise that there are difficulties about the Police Bill, but we believe that they should be overcome in today's proceedings. We want to proceed with the Bill in the way I described last week. I know that there are some problems, but we shall do our best to overcome them.

Mr. Wigley: May we have an early debate after the recess on the Layfield Committee Report? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Government will publish a White Paper as quickly as possible in view of the uncertainty created by the report, particularly in the farming community?

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise an early debate. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made clear, there are a number of formidable documents associated with the report and the House and the country should have an opportunity to discuss the whole background, including these documents, before we have a debate. Of course, the report must be debated at some stage.

Mr. James Johnson: An important meeting is taking place in Oslo at this moment between NATO Ministers. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that a statement will be made to the House on Monday, particularly as the Foreign Secretary has been talking to the Icelandic Foreign Minister, Einarr Augusstson, and possibly other Ministers, about the cod war?

Mr. Foot: I know my hon. Friend's special interest in this matter. I cannot guarantee a statement on Monday, but I shall convey his question to the Foreign Secretary.

Sir David Renton: As I was one of the many hon. Members on this side of the House whose names were erroneously added to Early-Day Motion No. 389, may I ask whether, in order to ease the burden on the Table Office, our names will be withdrawn from that motion and added to the amendment without all of us having to go along to the Vote Office to ask that this should be done?

Mr. Foot: We shall try to ensure bulk redemption for hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Molyneaux: On what day does the Leader of the House expect to move the motion for the Adjournment for the recess?

Mr. Foot: I am not sure. It will be moved on Tuesday or Wednesday. I am sorry that I have not been able to make an announcement today.

Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend give consideration to debating EEC regulations and orders at a more reasonable hour, as there is growing suspicion —with both the Front Benches being in favour of Britain's entry—that these debates are coming on late so that the number of hon. Members in the House will dwindle and these matters can go through without proper parliamentary scrutiny? Would he consider this matter and, if necessary, bring forward a number of orders on one day, or make some other arrangement through the usual channels, so that hon. Members may discuss and, if necessary, vote on these vital questions?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is one of the most diligent attenders in the House, but I think that he was not here for last night's debate. I am not blaming him. But if he had been here, I am sure that he would have agreed that we are not seeking to treat this matter lightly. We are seeking better solutions for these problems.
We had what all hon. Members who were present would agree was a good and constructive debate last night. A solution is not easy, but we made some advance last night, and the Government will bring forward proposals to help the situation.
The question of the timing of debates was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and others. If EEC debates are to be taken at another time, other matters will be pushed out. That is one of the difficulties, but I shall certainly take into account the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer).

Mr. Tapsell: Will there be a ministerial statement next week on devolution announcing that the Government are retreating from their previous undertaking to produce a dummy Bill for discussion by the House in the present Session?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman and the House would be better advised to wait and see what happens next week. I hope that we shall carry the hon. Gentleman and many others along with us when the announcement is made.

Mr. Christopher Price: In view of the substantial public interest which the balanced report of the Select Committee on Cyprus has produced, will my right hon. Friend give an indication when this important and unique report will be debated in the House?

Mr. Foot: I am not sure that the phrase "balanced report" is the description that would jump to everyone's lips. We shall have to see whether the House wishes to have a debate or whether the report could be discussed within the general foreign affairs debate. I shall wait to see what representations are made to me.

Mr. Burden: The right hon. Gentleman showed some sympathy when I asked him last week whether he would consult the Home Secretary about the possibility of making available to the House the figures for the number of animals bred in establishments in this country for vivisection and exported, the number of animals that were so exported and the species of the animals in question.

Mr. Foot: I am sorry that no announcement has been made about it. I am not able to make an announcement now, but I shall communicate with the hon. Gentleman on the subject.

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) asked about the conservation of energy resources. Does not my right hon. Friend think that there should be a debate in the resonably near future on the conservation of water resources, in view of the abnormal drought? We have had debates on statutory matters appertaining to water, but a general stocktaking debate is called for.

Mr. Foot: Every question that is put to me illustrates the difficulty of providing time. I agree that it would be highly desirable to have debates on all these subjects, but the time is just not available. We have to deal with them in statements and by other means.

Mr. Whitelaw: I revert to the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) about the Police Bill. I am the first to understand that Leaders of the House normally reply that they will have to see how they get on. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the Bill has been largely rewritten since it was introduced and that there are a substantial number of amendments, many of which are tabled by the Government and by Labour Members? Does the Leader of the House further understand that we in no way wish unnecessarily to delay the proceedings? I genuinely believe that there will be too much business for the House to complete at a reasonable and sensible hour. Will the Leader of the House undertake that if that proves to be the case, we shall not be asked to sit through the night?

Mr. Foot: I understand that the representations made by the right hon. Gentleman are genuine and that the number of amendments put down gives rise to these anxieties. On the other hand, the Bill was given an unopposed Second Reading, and it has been considered at 21 sittings in Committee. It was announced last week that we hoped to conclude proceedings on the Bill in a single day, a single half-night or a single night [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was put down for business today and everyone understands that. Some questions were put to me about it last week. I hope that we shall be able to get the Bill through in today's parliamentary business. We shall have to take into account representations that may be made at some time during the evening, but we want to get the Bill through and we have strong reasons for doing so. We wish to get it to the Lords as speedily as possible.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Will the Leader of the House elaborate his reply on the question of a Cyprus debate? He seemed to be slightly lukewarm in his approach. Does he understand that this is a very serious matter, and there may be repercussions on the NATO Alliance if the report is left on the table for too long? Will the Leader of the House give it much higher priority?

Mr. Foot: I made no statement about priority in my reply. I said that I would wait to see what representations were


made on the subject, and I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. David Price: Has the Leader of the House had time to consider Early-Day Motion No. 382 calling for a Select Committee on rabies? He will recall that he answered my question last week favourably. In view of the exchanges earlier this week and today at Question Time, will he please state that the Government are prepared to set up a Select Committee on rabies? This is as much for the benefit of the Government as for anyone else.

[That, in view of the advance of rabies across continental Europe, with the increasing danger of this dreadful disease getting into Great Britain, this House invites the Government to establish as a matter of urgency a Select Committee to assess this danger, to study all appropriate measures, both to prevent rabies getting into Great Britain and to eradicate the disease, should preventive measures be unsuccessful, and to make recommendations.]

Mr. Foot: The Government are eager to do everything possible. Whether a Select Committee is the best way of dealing with the subject is another question, on which I have nothing to say now. I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the subject of rabies comes within the remit of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee and that members of that Sub-Committee have asked me as their Chairman to indicate that they are considering the possibility of taking it as their next topic of investigation?

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the information he has given.

Mr. Jessel: As the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill this morning completed its Committee stage, and as each week's delay in its implementation results in the loss of about 20 lives and 100 serious injuries, will the Leader of the House say when time is likely to be found for the remaining stages of the Bill?

Mr. Foot: I cannot give the exact date. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's arguments.

Mr. Crouch: Will the Lord President take it from me that the country's concern over rabies is no longer whether it will cross the Channel but when? The people in East Kent are anxious about the state of medical knowledge in this country and the world. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Social Services about existing medical knowledge of the treatment of this terrible disease?

Mr. Foot: I shall see whether a statement about that can be made to the House next week. if a statement is made I hope that I shall not be accused of taking up the time of the House. I appreciate that it is a serious subject, but whether a Select Committee is the best way of dealing with it is another matter.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Has the Leader of the House seen Early-Day Motion No. 390 drawing attention to the failure of the promoters of the British Transport Docks (Felixstowe) Bill to make available to hon. Members a transcript of the Committee stage to enable them more effectively to deal with the Report stage? Will the Leader of the House consider referring the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure, so that in future when we consider contentious Private Bills we shall have available to us transcripts of the proceedings of the Committee to enable us to form a better judgment during the remaining stages?

[That this House records its displeasure at the failure of the promoters of the British Transport Docks (Felixstowe) Bill to ensure that there was available in the Private Bill Office a supply of transcripts of the proceedings of the Committee sufficient for the needs of honourable Members during their further consideration of this measure; censures the Agents for the promoters, Messrs. Sherwood &amp; Co., for this discourtesy to Parliament; and requests Mr. Speaker to consider whether the said Agents should be suspended from the Register of Parliamentary Agents.]

Mr. Foot: I cannot add to what Mr. Speaker said yesterday on this subject. In the light of what you said, Mr. Speaker, I hope that hon. Members who have put down a motion on the subject will see fit to withdraw it. They are not acting fairly towards the parliamentary agents by putting down the motion.
I shall consider whether it is advisable to refer the matter to the Sessional Procedure Committee. That is not a promise to do so. I shall consider it. In normal circumstances a Private Bill is not a matter for the Leader of the House, but I shall consider it. Whether or not we propose to send it to the Committee on Procedure, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will withdraw the motion from the Order Paper.

Mr. Lawrence: In view of the number of recent miscarriages of justice which have come to light, and the need to maintain public confidence in the system of criminal justice, will the Leader of the House give urgent consideration to bringing forward a debate on the Devlin proposals?

Mr. Foot: The Home Secretary referred to this subject last week. I cannot promise an early debate. The question whether there should be legislation is being urgently considered.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I understand that the Leader of the House will shortly have before him a report about the. House catering facilities. When will he lay it before the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange matters so that, when we come back after the short break, the Terrace Cafeteria downstairs is no longer closed at 7.30 p.m? Those of us who do not want high tea or dinner on a given night have to discuss business with our colleagues in the public cafeteria after 7.30 p.m.

Mr. Foot: These decisions were made by a previous Committee of which I was not a member. Whether they should be altered involves a whole series of other factors which the Committee, no doubt, took into account. I cannot yet give a date for when I shall put down a motion on the subject but I will try to let the hon. Gentleman know as soon as possible.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will the Lord President discuss with the Prime Minister whether an early opportunity could be taken to clear up the appalling allegations which have come to light regarding South Africa? Whatever the truth, or otherwise, of this matter, it surely cannot be left where it is.

Mr. Foot: I do not think there is any purpose in my adding to what the Prime Minister said at Question Time about the matter.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the Leader of the House ensure that we do not debate the Layfield Report until at least three clear weeks after the publication of the evidence? Does he agree that it is quite unreasonable for the House to debate a matter of this complexity when it has not had adequate time to read the evidence submitted because it has not been printed and will not be available to hon. Members for some considerable time? If he cannot get it printed in a reasonable time through the usual channels, could he have it printed privately, rather than at the Stationery Office, so that hon. Members have it available as soon as possible, which must be highly desirable?

Mr. Foot: I certainly have some sympathy with hon. Members who urge me not to have urgent debates. I take that into account at once.

Sir Bernard Braine: Will the Leader of the House reflect on the answer which he gave to the request from this side of the House for more time to be given for consideration of the Police Bill? He seemed to give the impression that because the Standing Committee had had 21 sittings, this was sufficient. Will he bear in mind—and I speak as a member of the Committee—that in 25 years I cannot recollect another Bill which has left a Committee with so many alterations? If, on this important Bill, there is to be adequate consideration of even Government proposals, more time must he given; otherwise, I am afraid, a great deal of the argument will go through the night, tomorrow's business will be lost and no purpose will be served.

Mr. Foot: I was not suggesting that the fact that there were 21 sittings in Committee was the sole factor to be taken into account, but I think it is one of the factors which it is legitimate to take into account when considering the amount of time devoted to a Bill. I am sure that, if the research students got to work, many examples would be discovered of Bills which had been altered more extensively than this Bill. I repeat that we very much want to get the Bill through at today's proceedings, if we can, but I have


heard the representations which have been made. We shall have to see what happens, although this should not be taken as any undertaking by me. We shall have to see what occurs.

Mr. Beith: Since progress has not been made in the discussions on the composition of the Committee of Selection. and since the Leader of the House cannot, for good reasons, carry the discussion further until the day before the Committee next meets, will he make time available for the motion on the Order Paper to be discussed?

Mr. Foot: I should like to have further discussions with the hon. Gentleman and others who represent some of the other parties in the House. I think we could have some discussion at the beginning of next week. Let us see how we proceed then. I do not believe that any vital decisions will be taken before we have had another opportunity to discuss it. What we are trying to do is see whether there is a convenient way in which the matter can be settled with general agreement throughout the House. I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has a case, and we have to see how best we can accommodate it.

ADVOCACY BY MEMBERS (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) suggested to me that it was
a convention of the House that an advocate does not personally raise or discuss in this House any matter which concerns a case in which he has been directly involved."—[Official Report, 19th May 1976, Vol. 911, c. 1429.]
I promised to give a considered ruling today.
The resolution of the House deprecating advocacy by Members of cases in which they have been concerned professionally for a fee must still be regarded as standing and indeed it was cited with approval by the Select Committee on Members' Interests of 1969 –70. It is, however, quite clear from the context of the debate at the time that the resolution was directed at civil cases and to cases involving Private Bills in particular.
In 1893 Mr. Speaker Peel was asked about a case involving the criminal law and he replied that after a criminal case had been decided there might be information at the disposal of a Member engaged in the case which could usefully be supplied for the conduct of the debate. Those were almost exactly the words used by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and I agree with him. I therefore intend to follow Mr. Speaker Peel's ruling until the House directs me otherwise.

Orders of the Day — POLICE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise the question of the selection of amendments? The amendments which have been selected do not include two new clauses to which, we were told in Committee, further consideration would be given before Report. There was no express undertaking, but a reference was made in Committee to the fact that further consultation would take place both in relation to the new clause which now stands on the Notice Paper as New Clause 7 and to the clause which now stands as New Clause 3, neither of which has been selected. I appreciate that the extent to which it is legitimate to question your ruling on these matters is limited but these are matters which occupied the Committee for some considerable time. It was considered that we were not in a position to press those amendments to a vote because further consultation was required. It was indicated that this consultation would take place.
Amendment No. 9 which appears on the Paper to a certain extent is the other half of New Clause 7. May I ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, for a ruling that you will permit New Clause 7 specifically to be discussed when we reach Amendment No. 9?
However, New Clause 3 does not arise, except to a certain extent, under any other amendment: it stands in its own right. It was the subject of considerable debate in Committee. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department said in col. 1035 that it was intended that explorations and investigations with the police organisations would be undertaken to see to what extent it would be practicable to deal with the spirit and intention of the new clause which corresponded to what is now New Clause 3. In those circumstances my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) withdrew his amendment. However,

neither of these new clauses is listed for debate.
While I appreciate the point made by the Leader of the House—we are all anxious to see this Bill go through—it is, nevertheless, a technical Bill and an important and difficult Bill. It is important to ensure that it goes through in a form which is workable. Both sides of the House desire to see the Bill carried through effectively but it requires examination and the two new clauses are important. I feel that we should have an opportunity to discuss them in adequate detail.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) is right. Substantially the same clause as New Clause 3 was withdrawn in Committee, as reported at col. 1037 of the Official Report, on the understanding that the Parliamentary Secretary would intervene on Report to tell us of his consultations. Try as I might, I cannot see any other new clause or amendment as tabled, either by the Government or by Back Benchers on either side, which would allow him to make that intervention. Although the undertakings were given on All Fools Day 1976, I hope that they can be honoured and that perhaps the selection of amendments might be reconsidered on this point.

Mr. Michael Alison: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that some very special considerations arise about the way in which we should handle the Bill and the suggested amendments. I do not know whether you are aware of the fact, but had it not been for the attitude of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), myself and one or two of my colleagues towards amendments tabled in Committee the Bill would not have emerged in this form, if at all.
It is only because we agreed to a Government undertaking that they would enter into the most widespread and systematic consultations with outside bodies on the basis of proposals very akin to those contained in some of the new clauses—I understand that those


consultations have since taken place—that we allowed the Bill to go through as it was. Because of the ending of the Committee stage, there has been no systematic opportunity to debate the principle which we put forward.
The most important point is the reaction to those consultations of outside bodies with an immediate personal interest. This is the only opportunity that the House has had to consult and debate matters widely discussed outside by the representative bodies of the police. It would greatly damage the principle of debate and consideration of measures supported by both sides if we were not given an opportunity at least to discuss new Clause 4 and, I believe, new Clause 3. I hope that it will be possible for you to reconsider this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged for the way in which hon. Members have raised their points. I shall certainly look at New Clause 3, but I must say that my first understanding is that an identical, or almost identical, new clause was discussed in Committee and withdrawn without being pressed to a Division.
On New Clause 7 I cannot hold out much hope at all, for technical reasons. I get into difficulties if I start explaining why I have not selected any new clause, and I had better not do so now. I shall consider whether there is cause to change my selection.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. What my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) has said about New Clause 3 is correct. I undertook to report on the progress of certain negotiations. It is obviously a matter for you, but I have no objection to discussing New Clause 3.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged. I shall let the House know my decision within a few minutes when I have considered it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that this point of order is constructively put. It is intended solely to expedite progress on the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) said, we are confronted by two Government new
clauses and, subject to your discretion, possibly with extended debate on between 27 and 30 new Government amendments, plus amendments by others. I would, through you, put it to the Home Secretary, who I know wishes to get the Bill through, as do we all, that it is more likely to go through expeditiously if the House can know reasonably soon that the Government will not be pressing us to gallop through the whole thing during the night. The right hon. Gentleman will know from his experience of the House that pressing hon. Members to do that is likely only to be counter-productive and to result in debates which do not expedite the Bill. I would, through you, Mr. Speaker, ask the Home Secretary—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot ask the Home Secretary anything through me. He must ask him directly when he gets the chance. I have undertaken to look at the matters raised, and that I shall do.

Sir Bernard Braine: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept the ruling which you have just given, of course, but you are responsible for the general conduct of proceedings. I would join my hon. Friend in submitting—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know already what is coming. We shall reach midnight simply on points of order if we do not begin the business. I cannot allow points of order on the question of how long the debate is likely to continue. If I am wrong in my assumption of what the hon. Gentleman wanted to raise, I apologise.

Sir Bernard Braine: You have the gift, Mr. Speaker, of the Celtic race. You have psychic powers which enable you to see deep into the recesses of my heart and mind. All that I wanted to say is that, unless there is some quick response to the pleas which have been made, not only will the Government's clause, which we in principle support, be badly served but every police officer in the country, whose morale is bound up with what happens to the Bill, will look askance at this House. I hope that for that reason, if not because of the feelings of hon. Members, due note will be taken by the Home Secretary.

New Clause 1

DISCIPLINARY CHARGES IN CRIMINAL CASES

'(1) A disciplinary charge shall not be preferred against a member of a police force (or, if already preferred, shall be withdrawn) if he has been convicted or acquitted of a criminal offence and the charge would, if it were criminal, be barred by the conviction or acquittal.

(2) Subsection (1) above shall not be construed as applying to a charge in respect of an offence against discipline which consists of having been found guilty of a criminal offence'.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following amendments to the new clause:

Amendment (a), at the end of subsection (2), insert:
but no punishment that is applied in respect of such a discipline offence shall be more severe than that to which the police officer already has been sentenced in respect of the said offence'.

Amendment (b), at the end of subsection (2), add:
'(3) a disciplinary charge shall not be preferred against a member of a police force (or, if already preferred, shall be withdrawn) if the charge is in substance the same as a possible criminal charge on which the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided, on evidential grounds, not to prosecute'.

We may also discuss Government Amendments Nos. 26 and 38.

Mr. Davidson: These amendments and the new clause are designed to deal with the problem of double jeopardy and to fulfil undertakings given by the Government in Committee. In announcing last July the scheme which is now embodied in the Bill, my right hon. Friend made it clear that, in drawing up his proposals, he had been most careful to ensure that the important principle of no double jeopardy should remain unimpaired. That is still his view and still the Government's policy.
The Government recognise the great importance which the police service, rightly and understandably, attaches to this principle—a concern which was reflected in Committee debates which went on for a great deal of time—at all

costs being maintained. There is no question, therefore, of anything but complete agreement on the underlying purpose of these amendments. It is the method of achieving it which has proved difficult to decide.
The difficulty arises because double jeopardy is fairly easy to recognise when it occurs in a given set of circumstances, but is almost impossible to define in general terms so as to provide for every case. The example which is often quoted and which certainly exposes the principle clearly is that when, in the case of a complaint against a police officer, the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided, on evidential grounds, that criminal proceedings should not be brought, proceedings for a similar offence under the discipline code should not be brought if the evidence required to substantiate the disciplinary charge is the same as that which would have been required to substantiate the criminal charge.
But that example by no means covers all the cases in which double jeopardy might occur. It would be contrary to accepted ideas of natural justice and justice as administered in the courts if a police officer were to be charged with a disciplinary offence similar to a criminal offence on which he has already been tried by the courts. That is the basis of New Clause 1.
On the other hand, there may be cases in which, without breach of the principle of double jeopardy, it would be appropriate to bring disciplinary proceedings—for example, where a disciplinary defence rested on elements distinct from criminal aspects of the case. I do not want to weary the House with further examples, many of which were given in Committee, and it would not help the proceedings if I gave any more. However, I shall do so if that is the wish of hon. Members.
4.30 p.m.
Certainly it was found in Committee that there would be many cases in which a decision could be taken only in the light of particular circumstances, because issues are by no means always as clear-cut as might be supposed. There was some disagreement between hon. Members in the Committee about whether in any particular case there was double jeopardy. Because of the wide variety of circumstances in which the


principle of double jeopardy might fall to be considered, chief officers of police have not been subject to statutory orders or regulations in this matter. But, as hon. Members who were on the Committee will know, they have followed non-statutory guidance issued by the Home Office, drawn up in consultation with the police service amongst others, based on police experience and acknowledged good practice. This system has worked well and has stood the test of time, so that the chief officers of the service concerned see no need to change i t.
What is important, however, as was stressed in Committee, is that the intervention of the board should not result in any threat to present practice in respect of the rule against double jeopardy. The second part of the amendment is designed to ensure that, in discharging its functions under the Bill, the board shall have regard to current guidance to chief officers on the question of no double jeopardy. We hope that this twofold approach the new clause and the amendment which I have mentioned—will answer the concern of the Committee that statutory provision should be made in the Bill for the principle of no double jeopardy.
Perhaps I may add a few words on the substance of the new clause. It was clear from the Committee discussion that hon. Members were anxious for something more than a provision relating to Home Office guidance of the kind to which I have referred and sought some kind of general provision as well. The new clause attempts to meet this requirement. It is based on the well-established principle that no one should be tried for a second time on the same criminal charge on the basis of evidence which has already been considered by the courts. In such circumstances, the plea of autrefois convict or autrefois acquit —I am afraid that my French is appalling, though it is no worse than my normal English—to use the correct legal terms, would be a bar to further proceedings.
Subsection (1) of the new clause gives expression to the same principle in terms of disciplinary charges similar to criminal charges on which an officer has already been tried. It is generally accepted that where an officer has been convicted of a criminal offence there is no breach of the

principle of double jeopardy if a disciplinary charge of conviction for a criminal offence is then proved. If, for example, a police officer commits a serious criminal offence, his fitness to remain in the force is clearly in doubt, and it is right that the chief officer should be able to prefer a disciplinary charge of conviction for a criminal offence so that suitable action may be taken.
Subsection (2) of the new clause, therefore, is designed to make clear that this specific case is not affected by the new provision relating to double jeopardy in subsection (1). Amendment No. 26 does not call for any further explanation.
I have not so far expressly mentioned Amendment No. 38, in Clause 7, page 6, line 4.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Can my hon. Friend clarify the nature of the advice to be given to chief officers as to the principle involved where an officer has been involved in criminal proceedings? It appears from the wording used in Amendment No. 26 that chief officers are to be guided as to the principles to be app!ied where a criminal offence may have been committed. At present, the 1964 Act is clear that in any case in which a criminal offence has been alleged this must mean double jeopardy. Is it contemplated that there will be any change in that provision? If not, what kind of guidance is likely to be issued to chief officers in relation to such cases?

Mr. Davidson: Certainly no change is contemplated, and the guidance that is already offered to police officers will continue to be offered. The Committee was concerned that any guidance on double jeopardy given under this new amendment should be freely available to Parliament, police and the general public so that there should be no doubt as to the principles to which the board would be bound to have regard in dealing with complaints cases referred to it. This seems a useful suggestion, and the amendment to which I have referred seeks to make provision accordingly.
I am not sure whether I ought to deal with Amendments (a) and (b) to the new clause until they have been moved by Opposition Members, but I shall be quite happy to do so.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has used the term "serious criminal


offence" as being a case for which a police officer would automatically be disciplined; and because he had been guilty of a serious offence no case would need to be put against him. That is a fact. Of course, this covers not only what the hon. Gentleman describes as a serious criminal offence but any criminal offence, and this can include quite minor matters.It can include any traffic offence. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not resting his case on the argument that only a serious criminal offence will bring an officer into discipline, because any criminal offence will do so.

Mr. Davidson: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. I believe everybody will accept that in the case of a serious criminal offence such as shoplifting—which is a serious offence though not one of the most serious—an officer's fitness for the force would certainly be in doubt. It would be up to the chief officer to take whatever disciplinary measures he thought necessary. Equally, in the case of conviction for a traffic offence, although the chief officer would certainly consider whether disciplinary proceedings were necessary, the public at large probably would accept that possibly in those circumstances punishment was not necessary.
It was only for that reason that I mentioned a serious criminal offence. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. He is quite correct. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept this group of amendments which attempt to deal with the question of double jeopardy, which the Committee and, I am sure, the House, and certainly the police, understandably attach great importance.

Mr. Alison: In considering the Government's new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I also address myself at the same time particularly to Amendment (b) in the name of my hon. Friends and myself?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. It is necessary that we refrain from moving the amendments until after the Question on the Second Reading of the new clause has been put and agreed to. The amendments may

be discussed generally, but they must be moved at a later stage. A general discussion is in order.

Mr. Alison: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the context of a general discussion, I shall speak particularly to New Clause 1 and the Government amendments and to Amendment (b). My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) will address himself particularly to Amendment (a) standing in his name.
I start by thanking, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department for the major advance in the drafting of the Bill which the Governments new clause represents. We were delighted with the ringing tones of his Norman accent in his reference to autrefois acquit. It is this, perhaps, which gives us the lead-in to the criticism I wish to make.
Having thanked the Government for going so far, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends still feel that they have not gone far enough. This is why, in particular, we can elaborate the new clause by the addition of our new subsection in Amendment (b); it should really be subsection (3). To make our dissatisfaction clearer, I refer the Parliamentary Secretary to the advice which, I believe, has been given to the House and to the Government by the report of the working group, Command 5582.
The hon. Gentleman will remember, from paragraph 14(iv) of that report, that there was an elaborate discussion in it on the principle of double jeopardy. Two things emerged, crucially, from that analysis of double jeopardy. The first was that there should be no double jeopardy following acquittal on a criminal charge. It is quite clear that there is no double jeopardy where there is conviction on a criminal charge, because it simply could not arise. However, the principle enshrined there is that there should be no double jeopardy on acquittal on a criminal charge—that is, when a criminal charge has been decided upon, when the Director of Public Prosecutions thinks that there is enough evidence on which to prosecute, a case is launched and an acquittal is secured. That is when there has been a prosecution and an acquittal.
The recommendation of the working group was that it is an existing common law right that there should be no double jeopardy in such a context; that one cannot be charged again with an offence for which one has gained an acquittal. The working group said that this principle should be enshrined for the police in whatever legislation followed its report. That is exactly what the Government have done. They have sought to enshrine the principle of no double jeopardy following acquittal on a criminal charge. So far, so good.
However, the working group went further than that. It analysed and isolated a situation in which there had been no prosecution because on evidential grounds it was found impossible or undesirable, or was not possible for other reasons, to follow through to prosecution. This is what the working group said about double jeopardy in regard to that second subsidiary set of circumstances:
The law already ensures against this risk following an acquittal on a criminal charge, and the same principle should apply where, after a complaint against a police officer has been investigated, it is decided that he shall not be prosecuted but he is put on a disciplinary charge, or is given guidance, or is told that the complaint has not been substantiated. it would be unjust to a police officer, if, in consequence of a subsequent review by some other person or body, decisions of this kind could be re-opened and he was put in peril all over again.
The working group explicitly isolated not the situation of conviction or acquittal on a criminal charge but the possibility of no criminal charge being levelled because of lack of evidence. It said that in those circumstances there should be no double jeopardy. Indeed, as we reminded ourselves in Committee, the guidance of the Home Office on this subject is quite explicit. It says:
After any necessary reference to the Director, the Deputy Chief Constable will decide whether disciplinary proceedings should be instituted against the officer concerned. As now, disciplinary proceedings will not be brought on charges which are in substance the same as possible criminal charges on which the Director has decided on evidential grounds not to prosecute.
There are, therefore, at least two hazards to which a police officer is exposed. First, there is that of being subjected to a disciplinary charge when he has already been acquitted in a criminal case.

Secondly, there is that of being subjected to the risk of a disciplinary charge when he might have been acquitted had a criminal case been levelled but when it had been decided that the evidence was insufficient to produce one.

Mr. Frank Hooley: The hon. Gentleman seems to be pushing his argument into a very extreme situation. What he is saying, in effect, is that the mere reference, of an alleged offence to the Director of Public Prosecutions shall rule out any disciplinary proceedings.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Alison: No, I am not saying that. Two things can happen when a reference is made to the DPP. He can either say that the case admits, of no criminal charges and does not come within the ambit of the criminal law. That is one thing that the Director might do. Under such circumstances, as this is entirely a disciplinary matter, I regard it as entirely proper and in no sense double jeopardy that the police officer should be subjected to disciplinary scrutiny. However, the DPP might say "Yes, potentially, prima facie, this is a criminal case. What evidence do you have? "Then an examination of the evidence takes place and the DPP finally decides, in his wisdom and professional experience, that the case, although potentially criminal, is not sufficient to stand up in court. He then rules that there should be no prosecution, on evidential grounds.
It is in that situation that the working group said that there should be subsequently, likewise, no hazard of disciplinary proceedings, because what had been ruled out on evidential grounds as the possibility of a criminal case could not then qualify on the same lack of evidence as a disciplinary charge. That is the same thing as the working group referred to as the scope of possible double jeopardy.
The new clause deals only with the first eventuality—namely, a criminal charge actually having been brought and having resulted in acquittal. That does not go far enough.
There is no doubt that our proposed subsection (3) in Amendment (b) catches up this second hazard, to which there is no doubt that the police disciplinary


regulations and Home Office guidance make reference as being an area in which there should be no possibility of a disciplinary charge.

Mr. Hooley: The hon. Gentleman must accept that basically there are two things that the DPP can do. He can either proceed with the matter in court or decide not to do so. If he proceeds with the matter in court and the policeman is convicted or acquitted, very well, that is it. If he does not proceed with the matter in the court, the hon. Gentleman is still saying that that should be a ground for taking no disciplinary proceedings. I find that an extraordinary argument.

Mr. Alison: That is exactly the Home Office view of the existing procedure within the police force.

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bethnal Green and Bow): Perhaps —

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) will not mind very much if I give my ruling now, by leave of the House, and then I can withdraw again for a short while.
In view of the representations that have been made from both sides of the House about New Clause 3, on which there was no clear undertaking given by the Minister—at least, not according to Hansard—I am, none the less, quite agreeable to the House discussing it, and it will be called.
I am afraid that it is quite impossible for me to agree to New Clause 7 being called. "Erskine May "tells us,
Amendments are inadmissible if they refer to, or are not intelligible without, subsequent amendments or schedules, of which notice has not been given, or if they are otherwise incomplete "—
as new Clause 7 is.

Mr. Whitehead: May I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling on New Clause 3? I think that those thanks will be echoed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. At what stage do you envisage calling New Clause 3? I believe that 26 separate debates are scheduled.

Mr. Speaker: I shall call it when we come to it.

Mr. Mikardo: Perhaps 1 may put this point to the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison). It seems to me that his argument would be right if the function of the DPP were to form an opinion in a case put up to him on whether the person concerned was guilty. But that is not his function. His function is to decide whether a prosecution is likely to be successful.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is a very different matter. The DPP may well take the view that the person is, prima facie, guilty, or looks to be guilty, or that there is a good chance that he might be guilty, but that, nevertheless. it would be difficult to carry a prosecution. On those grounds. the fact that the DPP has decided that the case might not stand up in a court of law is surely no justification for saying that the disciplinary procedure, which is not so rigidly bound as the rules of evidence in a court of law, ought not to proceed.

Mr. Alison: I do not think I am competent to debate philosophically and definitively the basic and fundamental point of merit that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I make one simple point. The Police Disciplinary Code, the famous guidance from the Home Office upon which the police disciplinary regulations are based and which elaborates and expands the police disciplinary regulations, which are summarised in an important paragraph in the Home Office circular, states:
disciplinary proceedings wil not be brought on charges which are in substance the same as possible criminal charges on which the Director has decided, on evidential grounds, not to prosecute.
That is the existing practice, whether it is right or wrong. It is a practice which the Government propose to encapsulate as continuing practice in Amendment No. 26, which refers in these situations to the existing practice in disciplinary regulations and the guidance given by the Home Office.
It seems that we have to observe the existing practice of principle. As I understand it, the only reason for the Government not being prepared to accept a fundamental recasting of the Bill on the lines that we sought to have approved in Committee is that any ex post facto scheme would involve the hazard of


double jeopardy. They cannot allow that second-class form of double jeopardy to continue as a hazard in the Bill. That is the reason for Amendment No. 26. In the view of the Opposition, what the Government have sought to refer to in that amendment should be brought into the clear and set out as part of the double-jeopardy provision in the new clause.
All that the Government have done in the new clause is to refer to the acquittal case and not to the potential case. I believe that both are extremely important to the police. In fact, both will be observed in future. Therefore, both should be written into the Bill.

Mr. George Cunningham: I apologise for intervening as I did not follow this matter in Committee. However, I had some correspondence some years ago with the Home Office on this very issue.
At that time a difficulty was that although the police were not supposed to take disciplinary proceedings on the same facts as had been ruled out by the DPP as insufficient for court proceedings, the DPP had several forms of wording available to him for communicating his position to a chief officer of police. One of those forms left it uncertain as to whether he was ruling out prosecution on evidential or other grounds. Let us be clear that in future the DPP will be making quite clear on which of the two grounds he has given a negative answer to the possibility of a prosecution.

Mr. Alison: If the Bill is enacted, it is important that that becomes the clear and regular practice in future. In cases which have been referred to the DPP and which come and go between the two bodies it is important that when the DPP reaches his final decision he makes it clear that he is not prosecuting because it is not a criminal case, or because the evidential grounds are not sufficient. If he decides not to prosecute because there is no criminal case, the matter immediately becomes inadmissible to disciplinary charges. Nobody is disputing that. If the position is that there is not enough evidence, or the evidence cannot be substantiated, the procedure should be that the police cannot follow it up on a disciplinary charge which in substance

amounts to that which will be prosecuted on a police charge.
That is all that we are seeking to write into the face of the Bill. We have extracted the terminology that is used in the Home Office guidance and tacked it on to the amendment. We extracted those words from the Home Office's own guidance and wrote them into the face of the double-jeopardy clause.
It is important because a further complicated matter arises in this context, on which, I hope the Minister will be able to give us some guidance. I refer to the matter of what does or does not go to the Police Complaints Board from the DPP reference.
Clause 2 provides that nothing shall be taken to the Police Complaints Board until the question of criminal proceedings has been dealt with by the DPP. We are anxious to know clearly what can and what can not emanate from the consideration of a complaint by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Police Complaints Board.
It is self-evident that a case in which the complaint is proved to be a criminal act, the policeman being the subject of a criminal prosecution and convicted, would never go to the Police Complaints Board. In those circumstances the matter would have been disposed of in the criminal dimension and that would be that. Likewise, I understand that if there is an acquittal on a criminal charge, the complaint cannot go to the board. After all, what would be the point? By definition it would be inadmissible as a disciplinary case.
The new clause provides that if there is an acquittal on a criminal charge the officer cannot be subsequently charged on a disciplinary basis. There would be no point in taking the matter to the board because the board exists to determine whether there shall be a disciplinary charge. If an acquittal means that a disciplinary charge is ruled out, by definition there is no good cause for it to go subsequently to the board.
In the light of our amendment, what happens to the new clause if disciplinary proceedings are ruled out because, although no charge has been laid, the evidential grounds are insufficient? This is the second-class sort of hazard. Once


again, it seems that it would make no sense to send a case to the board when the board has no scope for laying a disciplinary charge. Where no charge has arisen, such a reference is disbarred because double jeopardy Mark II arises. There would seem to be no good cause for referring cases to the board in those circumstances.
There are other instances in which cases do not go to the board. In fact, it becomes quite a long and interesting list. For example, when a complaint is withdrawn, the case cannot go to the board. There are other examples. It is important that we know in the second category of double jeopardy, the one in which no charges are being preferred because of a lack of evidence, why it is that the decision as to whether a disciplinary charge should be laid should be left to the board. The decision should be one on which the DPP rules when there are not sufficient evidential grounds for a prosecution.
Why should ex post facto the Police Complaints Board—this will be the provision resulting from Amendment No. 26 —receive cases that have not been prosecuted as criminal cases, it being left to the board to decide on guidance, admittedly, whether there is to be a disciplinary charge? It seems that the matter stands or falls on evidential grounds alone. Surely the DPP is the best judge of that.
I dare not ask leave to move my amendment at this stage because I understand that this is not the proper time to do so, but I hope that the Minister will take the point that the working party envisaged this subsidiary double-jeopardy as being a real one. I believe that the Government recognise that in Amendment No. 26, and we insist that they put it on the face of the Bill alongside the formal acquittal cases. Double jeopardy, from the police point of view, is equally hazardous. It would cost the Government little to make that concession.

5·0 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: First, I should like to thank the Government for living up to an undertaking given in Committe to try to deal more effectively with double jeopardy. They have done their best and gone nearly all the way to succeeding.
I should declare an interest at this stage which will be with me through the night's proceedings. I am an adviser to the Police Federation. The police service is grateful to the Government for what they have sought to do in living up to the Home Secretary's undertaking.
I have three points to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. The first is that, in reality, the police have always been and will continue to be subjected to double jeopardy regardless of the new clause. I say that for the following reason. If a police officer is taken before the court on any criminal offence—it can be a minor offence: having one over at Christmas, not being in possession of a valid driving licence for his private car, or something of that kind—and is found guilty, he is automatically taken into the disciplinary procedure of his force as well. Therefore, he goes through the wringer twice.
In the disciplinary proceedings he may be cautioned, reprimanded, reduced in rank, or dismissed the force. In any event, his career will suffer and he will be punished a second time. That is a double jeopardy which any disciplined service is bound to accept. That is the nature of a disciplined service.
However, I hope that the House is not under the illusion that, if we pass the Bill with this new clause, we shall eliminate double punishment of a police officer for the same offence. We shall not.
The question, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) stressed both in Committee and now, is whether the police should be subjected to punishment essentially on the same evidence when the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided not to prosecute.
In this connection I must refer to a letter written on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State and signed by her private secretary. This is the Minister's letter of 29th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash. I refer particularly to the penultimate paragraph in which the hon. Lady seeks to explain the Government's view:
The Government scheme deliberately provides for the majority of cases to go to the Board (except those mentioned in Clause 2(2)) even though, in a considerable number of these cases…the decisions taken by the Director will rule out any possibility of disciplinary proceedings.


That is where the Director has decided that there is no case to be prosecuted or the complaint has been withdrawn. The letter goes on:
The Government believe that the examination of the case by the Board in such circumstances will serve to reassure the public that the complaint has been properly examined by the police. Unless, for any reason, the Board dissent from the view that the police have taken, or wish to make further enquiries about it, it will, under our scheme, be for the Board to notify the complainant that there are no grounds for disciplinary proceedings".
Where a chief officer of police decides that he must discipline an officer after the DPP has considered the case, surely that should be the end of the matter. It cannot be right that the police Complaints Board should come into the case and, in effect, provide a third bite at the cherry.
I stress this point because, while the police service is grateful to the Government for trying to deal with double jeopardy, in effect, they have increased the problem of extended jeopardy. Because the Board is involved, the procedures for examining a case against a policeman will be stretched out. Instead of the man, his wife, his family, and his fellow officers being left in doubt about the disposition of his case for a matter of weeks, the odds are that he could be left in that situation for many months. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should accept that in dealing with double jeopardy he ought not to extend the period of jeopardy. That is a real anxiety in the police service.

Mr. Hooley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about this idea of extending the jeopardy. It is built into any system which relies on review rather than independent investigation. As long as the people he represents in the police force resist an independent investigation ab initio, they are forced into the extended jeopardy which he has rightly described.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman consistently sticks to his original point. But, for better or for worse, it is not the system that he proposes and, I suspect, would still prefer that the Government should accept. Therefore, while I take his logic—it is unarguable—the fact remains that, as things arc, I am entitled to complain that we shall be protracting

the jeopardy of accused police officers, and that cannot be right.
As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have allowed general, though not specific, discussion on Amendments (a) and (b) to new Clause 1, I propose to put this point briefly. Since there is inherent in this matter an extending and protracting of the jeopardy, it is all the more important that, at the end of the line, when disciplinary proceedings are brought against the police officer, the punishment should not be more severe than that which he would have received from the court. That is an important point to which we shall come later. I put it in now because it relates to the protracting and extending of the jeopardy.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I should like to refer briefly to Amendments (a) and (b). Amendment (a) appears to be restrictive and to have a bad effect on the court. It is clear that on many occasions in deciding what sentence to impose, the court takes into account other circumstances which may result from conviction. Often the court will pass a fairly light sentence if a man is likely to be dismissed from his job.
If this proposal were put into the Bill, it would be difficult for the court to pass a light sentence, because it would realise that the disciplinary proceedings which would automatically follow would be committed to a very light sentence as well. The court operates sensibly in dishing out a sentence by taking into account the effect of a conviction on a man's job. Therefore, although the police should not be more severe than the court, it seems dangerous to accept this amendment.
I turn now to Amendment (b). I am concerned about "evidential grounds". Many people are concerned about how the DPP works. It is difficult to obtain much guidance. But certain members of that office have on occasions addressed conferences and given some indication of how the DPP works. It appears that the Director of Public Prosecutions looks at the evidence and decides, first, whether he believes it, and, secondly, whether it will convince a jury. Apparently, a case may or may not go forward depending on previous experience of the behaviour of juries.
If the person in the DPP's office believes that the man is not guilty, it is
wrong for the case to go back to the board. But if the DPP says that, from past experience of putting such cases before juries, police officers have been believed in preference to members of the general public—in other words, it is a test of the court's reaction to the evidence—it is better for the matter to go to the board. Unless "evidential grounds" is satisfactorily explained, I hope that the amendment will be opposed.

Mr. Alison: Has the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) taken on board that the procedure he has objected to—namely, the uncertainty of evidential grounds for not proceeding with the prosecution—will be applied by Government Amendment No. 26, which will insist that the board observes the existing guidance given to the police in relation to their regulations? It would be exactly the same procedure by the back door as we are hoping to have by the front door.

Mr. Griffiths: I accept that to a certain extent, and I believe that it is one of the disadvantages of the Bill.
The guidance is that which is contained in Government Amendment No. 26. Can the Minister say whether the guidance which is intended to be sent out will be identical to that which exists at present? I cannot believe that it will be. I am sure that in the light of the new Bill it will be somewhat different guidance. I do not ask for it in detail now, but I hope that the Minister can at least give us an indication of the broad rules by which the Home Office expects chief officers to operate.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I do not know in what detail I am entitled to reply to the new clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to reply in detail to the amendments on the debate on the clause. The amendments to the new clause will be put eventually, if that is so required.

Mr. Davidson: Perhaps I may answer the last point. The guidance will be the same as it is at present, but modified to take account of the board, and of the amendments and so forth in the Bill. I cannot give the guidance in detail but

obviously it will be modified. Basically, however, the principles of the present guidelines will be preserved.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the guidance cover this specific question? After a disciplinary action has been gone through by a chief officer, it goes on to the complaints board which will explain to the original complainant what has happened. is the board to be the final source of information to the complainant, or will this matter remain with the police service itself?

Mr. Davidson: It will remain with the police service as at present. If I am wrong about that, I will correct it before the end of the debate.

Mr. Frank Tommy: Supposing a senior officer is involved in a charge of discipline and the chief constable decides that this man should be dismissed from the force and then the complaints board takes up the case and decides that he should not; whose authority for discipline will prevail? Let us suppose the position is reversed and the chief constable decides not to dismiss a man but the complaints board thinks he should be dismissed. Surely such a man would have the right to claim for wrongful dismissal.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: Obviously there are two sets of circumstances here. If charges are to be preferred, quite clearly the police would notify the individual that a disciplinary or criminal charge was to he preferred. If no charges were preferred the police would inform the officer as at present, and the board would say that is the end of the matter. Of course the Bill very much preserves the basic principle that it is up to the chief officer to decide on disciplinary charges.
I agree with the basic aim of Amendment (b) which is designed, as are the Government's own amendments, to ensure that the setting up of the new complaints procedure will not expose the police officer to the risk of double jeopardy. The amendment is in fact based upon, and is worded similarly to, the guidance issued to chief officers in the Home Office circular.
It is one thing to formulate guidance in respect of a matter which ultimately must be left to the decision of the chief


officers and quite another to convert the judgment into a statutory requirement. The Government have considered very carefully the example of double jeopardy contained in the amendment, but they have concluded that it cannot be given statutory force in the way proposed.
The first difficulty arises from the words "in substance the same". In practice there are not many cases where a criminal charge can be matched by a similar charge in the police discipline code, and what is "the same" must be a matter of personal judgment. It is a judgment which should be made by the chief officer, as it is now. If these words became part of the law, they would lead to endless arguments as to whether a disciplinary charge offended the principle set out in the amendment.
Another major difficulty in some cases arises from the fact that it is unlikely that the Director of Public Prosecutions has a particular criminal charge finally in view before reaching a decision that no criminal charges should be preferred. I am sure the hon. Gentleman accepts that counsel frequently take a long time to decide the exact nature of a criminal charge and whether the evidence fits a particular criminal charge. Even the ultimate charge may be found by the court to be defective.
If the evidence does not support any further action, it is pointless to consider what criminal charges might have been brought. There is no question of compelling the Director of Public Prosecutions to define hypothetical charges when possible criminal charges will not always be defined. In these circumstances, the provision in the amendment would achieve little or nothing.

Mr. Alison: I am obliged to the Minister for dealing in such detail with our misgivings about the provisions he has drafted. This is a nebulous area where often the unfortunate chief constable might find himself in some embarrassment in sorting out what is in substance the same case as a criminal one. It will he much more difficult for him if the case is to be Passed to the board to decide. At least at present the chief officer is in the hands of the Home Secretary under the guidance provided. for example, by Regulation No. 14. But in the whole agonising business of weighing up

whether a charge is in substance a criminal charge, the fate of the officer concerned could be worsened and double jeopardy could bite even more deeply.

Mr. Davidson: The guidelines will be there and the amendments set them out. I do not think that I can carry the lion. Member further with me than that.

Mr. George Cunningham: Is my hon. Friend sure that the Director of Public Prosecuions, in transmitting his decsion, will always make clear whether he is saying that the action complained of is not an offence, that it is so trivial that it is not worth prosecuting, or that the evidence would not stand up in court? Is he sure that on all occasions the DPP will clearly indicate when the third situation arises, because that was not the case a few years ago?

Mr. Davidson: The DPP does not in general give his reasons.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Apart from giving his reasons, does the DPP ever specify the particular offence upon which he has decided not to prosecute? Or does he say in general terms that he does not intend to take action?

Mr. Davidson: He would say in general terms, on evidential grounds maybe, that he has decided not to prosecute. There can be many complicated reasons why the DPP cannot proceed in a particular case.

Mr. Silverman: May I make a suggestion? The DPP may not prosecute for several reasons. One could he that there is not enough evidence to take to a jury; another that the facts brought forward, while they may be reprehensible and justify a disciplinary charge, do not amount to a criminal offence, and that is one of the things that the DPP must decide upon. That is something, on which clearly the chief officer must subsequently use his discretion.

Mr. Davidson: In general, the DPP does what my hon. Friend has said and will continue to do it. But he cannot specify in great detail why he has decided not to bring a particular case. It may be that he regards one of the witnesses as unreliable—perhaps because the witness has a string of convictions. That


is not the sort of point that he can make in any detail.

Mr. George Cunningham: I quite understand that within any one class of reason it would not be appropriate for the DPP to give his full reasoning. I can see no reason, however, why he should not distinguish between classes, those classes being, first, that the action is not a criminal offence, secondly, that it is a criminal offence but that it is not worth prosecuting, and, thirdly, that the evidence would not persuade a jury. It is important if the last class applies that the chief officer should be told that, because under Home Office guidance of a few years ago that would mean that he should not proceed with disciplinary proceedings.
The trouble is that the form of words used by the DPP would not indicate whether that last class applied. When I was trying to persuade Home Office Ministers in the last Conservative Administration that this should be made clear, I was given unsatisfactory reasons why it was undesirable to make it clear. I should have thought that the matter might have advanced a bit since then.

Mr. Davidson: I do not know whether it has advanced as far as my hon. Friend would have liked. The DPP will indicate the general reasons, if not the particular reasons. I cannot go further than that, but I am sure that the DPP will have noted what my hon. Friend said, and I shall pass the comments on to him anyway.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): It might be convenient if I intervene now to explain a point which may be of general assistance to hon. Members and which I may not have made clear earlier in the proceedings. Mr. Speaker's intention was that we should discuss New Clause 1 with Amendments (a) and (b), taking Amendments Nos. 26 and 38 with them. The aim is to have a fairly full debate so that the amendments to the new clause may be dealt with formally afterwards. I do not, of course, say this as any reflection on what the Minister was saying, merely to help hon. Members.

Mr. Davidson: The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bury

St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) seeks to provide that in respect of a disciplinary charge of having been convicted of a criminal offence, no punishment should be imposed which is more severe than that imposed by the court for the criminal offence. It is not possible to make a valid comparison between the issues which the court has to decide in considering the appropriate punishment and those considered at a hearing by a chief officer of police in respect of a disciplinary charge founded upon the fact of that criminal offence. In considering the appropriate punishment in each of these two sets of circumstances very different criteria apply.
The question for determination by the court would be what is a suitable sentence in the light of the circumstances of the offence, of the offender himself and, of course, primarily in the interests of public justice. The question for determination by the chief officer is certainly of a different character. Essentially it is whether a conviction unfits a police officer for continued service in the police force in general or in his particular rank. In any event, there is no similarity between the range of punishments available under the criminal law and under the police disciplinary regulations.
I well understand the concern felt by the hon. Member, but the amendment would serve no useful purpose since the decisions that the courts and the chief officer have to take are based on very different criteria.

5·30 p.m.

Sir Bernard Braine: I shall be brief. This is a delicate and sensitive matter in the sense that police officers do not ask to be treated any better than the generality of their fellow citizens, but they insist that they should not be treated any worse. Ministers will recall how in Standing Committee we repeatedly had to remind them of the sensitivity of the police service from the top to the bottom —from chief officers to constables on the beat—on this score.
That accounts for the vast array of amendments, some of them of a fundamental character, which the Government have felt obliged to put down. In his calm and charming way the Parliamentary Secretary referred on a number of occasions to "guidelines"—he almost threw the word away. But the guidelines


and regulations that will flow from the Bill are the key to whether the police service co-operates.
The Home Secretary is aware that the police service as a whole will do its duty. It will faithfully carry out the role it must play under the new arrangements. There is no question about that. The police service did not much like the Bill in the form in which it was presented to Parliament. But the principle of introducing an independent element into inquiries about complaints against the police by the public was accepted by both sides of the House and by the police service.
In referring to guidelines and regulations the Minister goes to the heart of the matter. Government Amendment No. 26 reads:
(7) In discharging their functions under subsections (2) and (3) above the Board shall have regard to any guidance given to them by the Secretary of State with respect to such matters affecting the:preferring and withdrawing of disciplinary charges as are for the time being the subject of guidance by him to chief officers of police, including in particular the principles to be applied in cases that involve any question of criminal proceedings.
I take it that the guidelines will be in the form of regulations and Home Office circulars. Complaints against the police have been the subject of a degree of consultation over the years. There were many circulars but I do not know exactly how many. I presume that regulations are being considered already in the light of what was said in the Standing Committee.
I call for an assurance that on this delicate and sensitive issue there will be no cursory consultation with the Police Staff Association involving a few days or the odd week or two before regulations are laid before Parliament. I call for an explicit assurance for the Police Staff Associations that there will be the fullest consultation before regulations are drawn up to form the guidelines upon which the Police Complaints Board is to proceed. Such an assurance may colour much of what I shall say, or what I shall not say, in the rest of the debate.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am grateful for the explanation that we are to discuss the range of amendments together.
In the presence of the Home Secretary I wish to say again that the police service is grateful to him for covering double jeopardy. The right hon. Gentleman has kept his word. But no explanation has been given on how the final disposition of the case will be conveyed by the board to the complainant, and therefore to the public.
There are three bites at this cherry. First, the officer may be charged with a criminal offence. He might have been speeding or had one over the limit during his week-end off. That would go to the DPP and perhaps to a court. The court can decide to punish or to let him off.
The next bite at the cherry involves discipline. The whole disciplinary procedure can be deployed against the officer and a variety of punishments could ensue—from reprimand, caution, transfer, suspension, loss of pay to a reduction in rank.
The new matter is that at the end of that procedure the board has to look at the way in which the deputy chief constable has disposed of the disciplinary charge against that officer. If the board is under pressure, that could take months. During that period the officer and his family will be left in uncertainty and protracted jeopardy.
At the end of that road the board can decide that the deputy chief constable has not imposed enough discipline on the officer. The board might conclude that he was too severe. Either way, the officer is faced with a third round before the matter is disposed of. The Bill protracts the jeopardy of that man and leaves him uncertain for a considerable time.
At the end of the procedure, when the complaints board has decided that it is not satisfied with the discipline imposed, there could be arguments about it and the case could go to a tribunal—the fourth round. The chief officer may be over-ruled by the tribunal and forced to punish the officer more severely, although he may have publicly indicated that he did not think the officer should be punished at all. That fourth round is inherent in the Bill. It is a further protraction. The Home Office should direct its efforts to reducing the length of time. That is important.
Will the Minister say that the Chief Officer will be seen to be the man who finally disposes of the matter? Nothing could be so subversive—but that is too strong a word—nothing could undermine the authority of the Chief Police Officer or tile confidence between him and his men so much as the Public appearance of the chief officer being overruled over the discipline of his own men. The federated ranks of the services are worried that a chief officer may be more severe than he might otherwise be because of the fear that the board will overrule him. No chief officer lightly puts himself in a position where he might be overruled.
I urge the Government to use every available means to reduce the length of time that these procedures can protract the jeopardy of police officers. I urge them to make certain that the board does not erode the public responsibility of chief officers to exercise discipline, because that could damage the morale of his men.
I take the point the hon. Gentleman made about Amendment (a), in my name. It is an argument I had already considered when I put down the amendment. One cannot draw an exact parallel between punishment for matters in the civil courts and the professional discipline that must be applied for the benefit of the service. I accept that, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that if a court of law has decided that the offence committed by a police officer justifies, say, a £25 fine, that officer should not subsequently find himself at the end of a whole disciplinary procedure involving the hoard, the tribunal and so on and then be confronted with what amounts to a financial penalty, through suspension, loss of leave, or loss of preferment, many times greater than the fine.
I do not seek to make the two sets of punishment analagous. They are not, but there must be some proportion. Nothing would cause more anxiety in the police service than if, as a result of the board's intervention, overruling a chief officer, a man were given a penalty vastly in excess of what a court of law had thought reasonable in all the circumstances. These are important matters.

Mr. Alison: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his effort

to deal with this nebulous area of secondary jeopardy, the area that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) hit upon when he said that it would be helpful if the Director of Public Prosecutions would in future make quite clear why in police complaints cases he is not proceeding to a prosecution—that is, whether his decision is on the basis of lack of evidence, that would certainly help clarify this area.
The Government's position is still very obscure. What the Minister has said so far, helpful though it was, has not clarified the matter. Neither has the Government's new clause or, above all, Amendment No. 26.
The operative guidance—the word "guidance" appears in Amendment No. 26—is set out in paragraph 14 of the existing Home Office guidance to chief officers, which says
Where an allegation against a police officer has first been the subject of criminal investigation, and it has been decided after reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions or otherwise that criminal proceedings should not be taken, there should normally be no disciplinary proceedings.
The hon. Gentleman has already picked up the phrase
where the allegations are in substance the same",
which is what the Home Office guidance says in another version.
So far, so good. There is fairly clear guidance that there should not be double jeopardy, in the sense that the normal pattern is that if there are no evidential grounds for criminal prosecution, there should be no disciplinary charge. But the hon. Gentleman rightly said that a problem arises with an allegation that is not substantially the same. What do we mean by that? Paragraph 15 of the guidance says:
It is for the chief officer (or his deputy) to decide whether or not disciplinary proceedings should be taken in these circumstances.
That is the existing guidance. Is it to be the continuing responsibility of the chief officer in these circumstances to decide whether disciplinary proceedings should be taken? If it is, there is no reason for the papers to be sent in such a case to the Police Complaints Board,


because what the Government's amendment says it that
the Board shall have regard to any guidance given to them by the Secretary of State".
The guidance says that it is for the chief officer or his deputy to decide whether a case can go to the board if the case is one in which the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided not to proceed, on evidential grounds. The board will scratch its head and ask "What do we do? We must have regard to the guidance, and that says that it is for the chief officer to decide".
So the case goes back to the chief officer. Why send it to the board in the first place? What is the point of this circular procedure, which merely extends the period of jeopardy and uncertainty for the unfortunate officer, and results in the board's buying two 10p stamps to send back the case?
5.45 p.m.
We should write on the face of the Bill that there should be no double jeopardy here. If the guidance changes, if paragraph 15 is withdrawn and it is not for the chief officer to decide, following a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute, there is double jeopardy. The case must be passed to the board with advice from the chief officer for it to make the decision. That goes clean against the existing guidance. Presumably it is not intended, but it would produce double jeopardy of the worst sort.
I believe that the Government intend to keep to their existing guidance. They say so in Amendment No. 26. We are left with the ludicrous situation that when a case goes to the board it looks at guidance which says "Send it back to the chief officer". That is circuitous and pointless. It would be easier to have the Home Office guidance set out in terms on the face of the Bill, as in our proposed new subsection. Without it, we shall run into serious difficulties.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary appreciates one subtle point about complaints which do or do not go to the board. This comes about if a criminal case on the complaint is held not to be substantiated, and no criminal charges are preferred, but a subsidiary disciplinary case arises on a subordinate issue. I

think of the peculiar example of the man whose complaint that he was hit on the head is not substantiated as a criminal charge but the police say that the officer concerned was off his beat, a matter which is the subject of a separate disciplinary charge.
We accept that it is desirable that that should remain so. Such a disciplinary charge does not go to the board, because it is not the subject of the same complaint. To have one set of such cases going to the board and one set going to the chief officer is thoroughly muddled. The simple way out is to have the existing guidance, however broad it may be, on the face of the Bill, in our desire to protect the police from double jeopardy and give them the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Hooley: I was rather disturbed by some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who gave the impression that it would be the board's function to insist on penalties or punishments greater than punishments which might otherwise be given. My reading of the Bill is that it has no standing in the matter of punishment, because even where the matter is referred to a tribunal, it is made quite clear that the punishment will remain the prerogative of the chief officer, although the Bill says that he shall consult the other two members of the board. The hon. Gentleman is gibing false information if he suggests that the board will have some authority in the matter of the punishment which may be meted out to the offender.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: If I gave that impression, I am glad that the lion Gentleman has corrected it. But the board will be able to tell the chief officer that it is not satisfied with the disposition of the case and require him to dispose of it in a different way. That brings in the question of punishment.

Mr. Hooley: The Bill does not speak of the board's not being satisfied with the disposition of the case. The board's duty is to be satisfied that charges have been preferred where they should be. Its only power in relation to the chief officer is to say at the end of the day "We are satisfied that you have preferred the correct charges" or, alternatively, "We are not satisfied and direct you to prefer the correct charges." But from that moment


on the disciplinary proceedings, the punishment, and so forth are as much in the hands of the police as they are now.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) has the matter quite out of focus, because the whole essence of the review procedure is to determine that where charges ought to have been preferred—not whether the man is guilty—they were so preferred, and that the police carried through their true functions in matters of discipline in relation to the particular complaint.
The hon. Gentleman's arguments bring in quite separate and extraneous matters, although I accept, as I have already said, that once the police reject the principle of independent investigation they are landed with the difficulty of extended jeopardy, and there is nothing we can do in the terms of the Bill to get out of that.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): Concerning the point made by the hon. Member for Essex, South East (Sir B. Braine), there will, of course, be consultation about the forms of the negotiation. We do not want them to be endlessly protracted. There will be full opportunity for consultation. That is the whole basis on which we proceed in this matter.
The point made by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) to some extent was a false point. Of course the new scheme affects existing arrangements. That is inherent in having an independent element. It is not a question of the chief officer taking a decision which is

Division No. 149.1
AYES
[5.56 p.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Clegg, Walter
Howell, David (Guildford)


Alison, Michael
Cope, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Costain, A. P.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Bell, Ronald
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)


Benyon, W.
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Drayson, Burnaby
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Biggs-Davison, John
Eyre, Reginald
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Blaker, Peter
Falrgrieve, Russell
Lamont, Norman


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Farr, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bottomley, Peter
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawrence, Ivan


Braine, Sir Bernard
Forman, Nigel
Lawson, Nigel


Brotherton, Michael
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Goodhart, Philip
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Budges, Nick
Goodhew, Victor
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Burden, F. A.
Gray, Hamish
Loveridge, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Griffiths, Eldon
Luce, Richard


Carlisle, Mark
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
MacGregor, John


Channon, Paul
Hastings, Stephen
Marten, Nell


Churchill, W. S.
Hayhoe, Barney
Mather, Carol


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Holland, Philip
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

known and then overruled by the board. The matter will be referred to the board and a decision will be taken by the board on the advice of the chief officer. The board may accept the advice. In exceptional circumstances it will overrule him. But it will be one decision. It will not be announced as one decision and then reviewed. It will be one decision taken by the board on the advice of the chief officer.

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) spoke about protracted proceedings. My whole object is to avoid protracted proceedings. His point about danger of double jeopardy would have very much greater force if we had some retrospective element brought in. looking at the matter after it had just been investigated.

I hope that on the basis of those assurances we may now begin gradually to make a little progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a second time.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In the circumstances. I will not move Amendment (a)

Amendment (b) proposed: at the end of subsection (2) add—
'(3) a disciplinary charge shall not be preferred against a member of a police force (or, if already preferred, shall be withdrawn) if the charge is in substance the same as a possible criminal charge on which the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided, on evidential grounds, not to prosecute'.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 102, Noes 140.

Mayhew, Patrick
Parkinson, Cecil
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Tebbit, Norman


Mills, Peter
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Miscampbell, Norman
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Moate, Roger
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Viggers, Peter


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walters, Dennis


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Weatherill, Bernard


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sainsbury, Tim
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Sims, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Neubert, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)



Newton, Tony
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Nott, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Mr. John Corny and


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Mr. Michael Roberts. 




NOES


Armstrong, Ernest
Hooley, Frank
Perry, Ernest


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Price, William (Rugby)


Bates, Alf
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bean, R. E.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hunter, Adam
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Bradley, Tom
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rooker, J. W.


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Roper, John


Buchan, Norman
John, Brynmor
Rose, Paul B.


Callaghan, Rt. Hon J.(Cardiff SE)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sedgemore, Brian


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Selby, Harry


Cartwright, John
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Clemitson, Ivor
Lamond, James
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cohen, Stanley
Lee, John
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Julius


Corbett, Robin
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Skinner, Dennis


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McCartney, Hugh
Small, William


Cryer, Bob
McElhone, Frank
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Davidson, Arthur
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Maclennan, Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Deakins, Eric
McNamara, Kevin
Stoddart, David


Doig, Peter
Madden, Max
Stonehouse, Rt Hon John


Dormand, J. D.
Mahon, Simon
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dunnett, Jack
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Eadie, Alex
Mendelson, John
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mikardo, Ian
Tinn, James


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Millan, Bruce
Tomney, Frank


Faulds, Andrew
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Tuck, Raphael


Flannery, Martin
Molloy, William
Urwin, T. W.


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Moonman, Eric
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkins, David


George, Bruce
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Weetch, Ken


Gilbert, Dr John
Newens, Stanley
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Gourley, Harry
Noble, Mike
Whitehead, Phillip


Grant, John (Islington C)
Ogden, Eric
Whitlock, William


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
O'Halloran, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Grocott, Bruce
Palmer, Arthur
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pardoe, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hardy, Peter
Park, George
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Harper, Joseph
Parry, Robert



Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pavitt, Laurie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Pendry, Tom
M. Donald Coleman and


Heffer, Eric S.
Penhaligon, David
Mr. Ted Graham.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause added to the Bll.

New Clause 2

COMPLAINTS THAT MAY INVOLVE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

'(1) Where the report of an investigation into a complaint is sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions in pursuance of section 49(3) of the Police Act 1964 (cases where criminal offences may have been committed) section 2(1) above shall not apply to the

complaint until the question of criminal proceedings has been dealt with by the Director.

(2) Where it appears to the Police Complaints Board that any information furnished to them under section 2 or 3 above —

(a) may be relevant to the question of criminal proceedings against the member of a police force against whom the complaint in question is made; but
(b) has not been furnished to the Director of Public Prosecutions,

the Board may request the chief officer of that force to transmit that information to the Director; and the chief officer shall transmit


that information accordingly unless it has already been furnished to the Director or the chief officer is satisfied that it cannot be relevant as aforesaid.

(3) A chief officer of police who is requested under subsection (2) above to transmit any information to the Director shall notify the Board whether he has transmitted it and, if not, his reasons for not doing so.'. —[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the new Clause we are to take Amendment (a) to the clause, at end of subsection (1), insert
and he has decided not to initiate a prosecution'.
Government Amendments Nos. 8 and 18; and Amendment No. 19, in Clause 2, page 2, line 35, at end insert
'and he has decided not to initiate a prosecution'.

Mr. Davidson: These amendments and the new clause deal with complaints by members of the public against police officers which involve allegations of possible criminal offences.
By Section 49 of the Police Act 1964, a chief officer is required to forward the report of an investigation into a complaint to the Director of Public Prosecutions, unless he is satisfied that no criminal offence has been committed. The new procedure introduced by the Bill does not affect this requirement and, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear on Second Reading and time and again in Committee, the Director's decision on whether or not criminal proceedings should be brought is not open to review by the board, which is concerned only with the question of disciplinary proceedings.
Lines 30 to 35 of Clause 2 were intended to make it clear that no report would be sent to the board under the provisions of Clause 2(1) until after the Director had given his decision on the question of criminal proceedings. However, it became evident during the discussions in Committee that there was a good deal of confusion about the precise relation between reference to the Director and reference to the board.
We have therefore sought to make matters clearer by removing the provision

in lines 30 to 35 of Clause 2 into a separate subsection, subsection (1) of the new clause. Government Amendment No. 8 paves the way for this part of the new clause by making it clear that the reference of a case to the board under Clause 2(1) is subject not only to subsection (2) of Clause 2 but also to sub-section (1) of the new clause. There is no difference in substance in that subsection. It remains the case that when a chief officer receives the report of an investigation into a complaint under Section 49, he must first consider whether there is any possibility of a criminal offence being involved. Unless he is satisfied that there is not, he must send the report to the Director under Section 49(3).
Only after the Director has completed his consideration of such a case and reached a decision on the bringing of proceedings does the chief officer turn his attention to the question of reference to the board under Clause 2. The fact that a case has been considered by the Director does not prevent the case also being submitted to the board, subject to the provisions of Clause 2 or of Regulations under Clause 5 concerning cases which are not sent to the board.
At the same time, we have tried to meet a point which was made in Committee by a number of hon. Members, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann). This was that in the board's consideration of the disciplinary aspects of a case —and bearing in mind especially its power under Clause 3(1) to call for additional information —fresh evidence might come to light which was relevant to the question whether a criminal offence had been committed and which had not been considered by the Director.
It was our view that, as a matter of common sense, the board would take appropriate steps if such information came to light in the course of its exercise of its functions under the Bill.
Nevertheless, we recognised hon. Members' anxieties on the point and we have considered how we could meet these without involving the board in criminal matters which are not its province or trespassing on the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It seemed to us


that the best course would be to introduce into the Bill a provision on the lines of subsections (2) and (3) of the new clause.
The effect of this will be that, if information furnished to the board under Clauses 2 or 3 of the Bill appears to be relevant to the question of criminal proceedings against the officer concerned but not to have been already referred to the Director, it will be able to request the chief officer of the force to refer the information to the Director. The chief officer would be required to comply unless the information had in fact already been sent to the Director or he was satisfied that it could not be relevant to the question of criminal proceedings. He would then be required to inform the board either that he had sent the information to the Director or, if he did not do so, why he had not.
This provision has the advantage, first, of maintaining the position of the chief officer as the channel of communication with the Director and, secondly, of not breaching the important principle that the Director's decision is not open to review. On the other hand, it will also help to ensure that any information which ought to be in the Director's hands does in fact reach him.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden is satisfied that this provision in statutory form meets the anxieties he expressed in Committee.

Mr. Roger Sims: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the new clause. There was some confusion on this issue in Committee, and if I am still a little confused it may be because I lack the hon. Gentleman's legal training.
The implication of the new clause seems to be that the board will have available to it information that was not already in the possession of the DPP or the police. I am not clear how this situation could arise. Surely the police would have had the fullest possible details when conducting an investigation, and if the DPP was dissatisfied he could seek more information before reaching a decision. It is not clear how the board could find itself better informed. Therefore, I am not clear about the purpose of the latter part of the new clause.
The new clause also seems to introduce the possibility that the Director will have the board looking over his shoulder. Despite what the Minister has said, it seems that the board will have the power to tell the DPP to do his job again. Difficulties could be caused if he was able to be semi-publicly overruled in this way.
The other aspect of the new clause is highlighted by our amendment, which attempts to clarify the situation in which the new clause would operate. We assume that it would do so when the DPP had decided not to initiate a prosecution. If he had decided to prosecute, the process we are discussing would presumably go ahead anyway and the new clause would not apply.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I welcome the provisions of the new clause as far as they go. They help to meet the concerns I repeatedly expressed in Committee.
My particular concern was that there might be circumstances in which further information in relation to disciplinary charges became available to the board and might indicate a glaring gap in the evidence which had gone to the DPP. For instance, the board might see that a particular witness had not been interviewed and, in considering whether disciplinary proceedings should be brought, it might suggest that the witness should be interviewed. His statement might put a different light on whether the officer concerned should face criminal charges. I was concerned with serious cases of allegations of criminal offences. In such cases the board might become aware of a lacuna in the evidence which needed to be filled.
My concern with the new clause is whether it goes wide enough, to ensure that, in a case in which there might be grounds for anxiety, the case would reach the board in sufficient time or that the board would be sufficiently alerted to matters which might need further investigation. The new clause makes clear, as did my hon. Friend in Committee, that if fresh evidence became available it would be possible for the matter to be referred back to the DPP. That was my major concern.
Hon. Members on all sides who have had experience of cases involving complaints against the police will be aware


that one of the most frequent reasons for dissatisfaction is that when a complaint was investigated some people were not asked to give evidence, and that if they had been interviewed the case would have been viewed in a different light.
The new clause makes clear that the matter could be referred back to the DPP, but it does not make clear the circumstances in which a chief officer could say that he was not satisfied that evidence was relevant and would therefore not refer it back to the DPP. There is no such power for chief officers to say that they are not prepared to find fresh evidence. They are given an express duty to supply any further information requested by the board.
I hope that the Minister will indicate the sort of circumstances in which he envisages that chief officers might be able to resist indefinitely pressure from the board that the statement of Joe Bloggs or whoever it might be should be referred to the DPP for him to consider whether in the light of the fresh evidence, criminal proceedings should be brought.
In another part of the Bill the board is given power to overrule the decision of a chief officer that disciplinary proceedings should not be brought. The board should at least have power to override a chief officer who was reluctant to refer a matter back to the Director of Public Prosecutions. If the Board thinks that evidence is material, it is inappropriate for the chief officer to be able to say that it is of no relevance and that he will not refer it back. Subject to that, I welcome the clause and the amendments associated with it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: We are not clear where these new subsections are to be inserted in the Bill. Therefore, the references in them to
section 2 or 3 above
are confusing. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) rightly says that the board will be able to obtain information furnished to it
under section 2 or 3 above",
but what will be above the clause? This is not just a technical point. It relates to the whole question of the information that further action should be taken by the on which the board will make a judgment

chief officer. The reference is in subsection (2) of the clause, which states:
that any information furnished to them under section 2 or 3 above".
I should like to know to which
section 2 or 3 above
that refers.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) asked me to explain in what circumstances the board might come into possession of fresh evidence. He is correct in assuming that in the overwhelming number of cases the police would have all the available evidence. The police will send that evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and he will consider the case in the light of that evidence. If the Director decides that he wants more evidence or that another witness should be interviewed, he can ask the chief officer of police to interview that witness and to send to him any other evidence which he considers necessary.
The circumstances in which fresh evidence would be sent by the chief officer to the Director are very limited. It might be evidence received following further inquiries instituted by the board under Clause 3(1). Fresh information might be sent by a member of the public direct to the board which the board considered might be relevant.

Mr. Alison: Subsection (2) states
Where it appears to the Police Complaints Board that any information furnished to them under section 2 or 3 above".
That is a precise, narrow channel of information. Information from the general public is not admissible under the two following paragraphs.

Mr. Davidson: The hon. Gentleman is right. Information from the general public would be sent to the chief officer of police.
Following the board's scrutiny of the papers, it might be decided that something relevant had not been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. These are very narrow circumstances. None the less, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) was right to raise the matter, and I hope that I have covered the point.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will my hon. Friend consider widening this provision


slightly to include information in the hands of the board as a consequence of investigation into other cases? Information from a completely separate case might be already in the possession of the board, and that information might be material for the Director of Public Prosecutions to take into consideration. If the board already had in its possession strong evidence to suggest that a police officer had accepted bribes or been guilty of some other offence, it would be material for that information to be supplied to the Director and, therefore, it should be passed to him.
I suggest that it might be preferable to leave out the words
under section 2 or 3 above".
Whether the information is supplied under Section 2 or 3 in relation to that case, in connection with another case or direct by members of the public—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman intervening?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am, Mr. Speaker. I am waiting for my hon. Friend to finish his conversation.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister is addressing the House. He cannot sit down for ever.

Mr. Davidson: I think that my hon. Friend was doing me a favour to allow me to get more information. I was listening with care and wondering when his intervention would finish.
I have already dealt with the point. If the board has information, it will go to the police and the police will pass it on in the normal way to the Director if it is evidence of a criminal offence.
The hon. Member for Chislehurst raised another point, which I have forgotten.

Mr. Sims: It was the circumstances in which the clause would operate. Will it operate simply when the Director has decided not to initiate a prosecution, or is it a general clause which applies whether he has or has not so decided?

Mr. Davidson: Whether the Director has decided to prosecute or not to prosecute, the cases will still go to the board. That is inherent in the clause. The board will examine all cases, even cases in which the Director of Public Prosecu-

tions has decided to prosecute. We dealt with that matter at some length in Committee, and the amendment merely clears up the point.

Mr. Alison: I still cannot understand the rationality of moving a new clause at the beginning of today's proceedings, as the Government did, providing that when a criminal charge is made against a police officer and he is either acquitted or found guilty he cannot be susceptible to a disciplinary charge. In what circumstances can it be relevant or necessary to send to the Police Complaints Board a complaint which has resulted in a criminal charge producing conviction or acquittal? There is nothing that the board can do about it.
The Government have ruled that the board may not prefer a disciplinary charge. It has been written into the Bill that no disciplinary charge can arise. The board is there to see that disciplinary charges are preferred when for some reason the chief officer has not done so. The Government have ruled out the admissibility of disciplinary charges, so there can be no conceivable rationale or purpose in sending a complaint to the board, because there is nothing that the board can do. It can only send it back and say that it is not relevant for consideration. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify this matter. It does not make sense to send cases to the board over which the board by definition has no jurisdiction.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: The case will go from the Director to the chief officer of police, who will send it to the board.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Why?

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: Because it is important that the board should examine the case. There are circumstances in which the chief officer of police —[Interruplion]. It is not a laughing matter. We considered this at great length in Committee and had a series of debates on the subject.

Mr. F. A. Burden: . It is so illogical.

Mr. Davidson: Since the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee, perhaps he might like to refer to what was said in those debates. The hon.


Gentleman is entitled to his view. It is important that the board should see all cases. It might well be that the chief officer of police had decided to bring some sort of disciplinary charges, not based on the same evidence, and it is important that the board should have cognisance of that. There are circumstances in which disciplinary charges could be brought on the same evidence as a criminal charge but there could be other separate disciplinary charges. We have debated this over and over again. Those charges do rot arise out of the same evidence upon which the criminal charge was based, but they are disciplinary charges which the chief officer of police, in his discretion, has decided to bring. It is those charges which the board would want to see and has a right to see. That is the answer to the question.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Perhaps I can help by saying that this is what we described in Committee as the "Regents Park case" where a policeman gets himself into difficulty with someone while he is in Regents Park. The matter is examined, and when it goes to discipline the chief officer discovers that the policeman should not have been in Regents Park at all but should have been in Islington. The charge which lies against him is that he was failing in his duty because he was not in the place where he should have been.
The Minister is not helping at all. In effect, what he is saying is that where the police bring disciplinary charges against a police officer because of some matter which has arisen, such as in the Regents Park case, it should have something to do with the board. In principle, it ought to have nothing to do with the board because there is no complaint which lies against that police officer in respect of the matter on which he is being disciplined. The complaint arises on an entirely different matter which has been disposed of. To bring in the board on the purely internal discipline of the service is wholly wrong.

Mr. Alison: Mr. Alison rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is disorderly to have two interventions at the same time. We must have the first one answered.

Mr. Davidson: I appear to be subject to very long interventions; perhaps there is something about my personality. I do not know what else it can be which causes people to speak at great length when they are intervening.
The board cannot interfere with the decision of the chief officer; that is absolutely true. The question of discipline and punishment is for him. It is, however, important that the board should have a general oversight of cases, including that sort of case.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: indicated dissent.

Mr. Davidson: The hon. Gentleman does not agree with me. I am sorry; I cannot take the matter any further than that. I think I have dealt with most of the points which have been raised, and I believe that the new clause and amendments go some way to meeting the points raised in Committee.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I was about to speak on this matter,Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I already have the hon. Gentleman's name down as having spoken. I must have written his name down by mistake.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I was out of the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, Mr. Speaker. Possibly my intervention may have given you the impression that I made a speech, but I hope my speech now will make it perfectly plain that my intervention was no more than a short aside.
The point I wish to make to the hon. Gentleman, which I hope he will take seriously, is that I think he has got it wrong and that he ought to consult his officials to make sure that he gets it right. The Long Title states the intention of the Bill:
To establish a Police Complaints Board with functions relating to complaints from the public against members of police forces".
That is the heart of the matter. It is only where the public make complaints that the Bill will operate. Of course, the very case we are dealing with is precisely one in which the public have made no complaint at all. It is simply a matter


in which, as a result of some infringement of the law or of discipline, a policeman's superiors discover that he has acted in a way which is an offence against the internal management of the service.
The public have no means of knowing whether a police officer ought to be in Regents Park or Islington or anywhere else. How can they? The public have no knowledge of how the police deploy their men. Therefore, if in the course of investigation of an offence it appears that there is some irregulatrity in the way in which a constable has carried out his professional duty, that is not a matter on which the public can make a complaint because the public, by definition, can have no knowledge of that.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Following the analogy of the Regents Park case, if a member of the public complains that a police officer in Regents Park was abusive to him or that the officer was drunk in charge of a car, the Director of Public Prosecutions would have to consider whether criminal proceedings should be brought against that policeman for driving while unfit through drink. The question of complaint would still have to be considered by the board. However, if Amendment (a) is accepted that will not be possible. I think that the hon. Gentleman is speaking beside the point, which is unusual for him.

Mr. Griffiths: I am obliged, as always, to the hon. Gentleman. He and the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I suspect, has now obtained advice from the Box, will recognise what we are dealing with here. If it is a case which concerns a police officer who is charged with assault or drunkenness, and there is a complaint by a member of the public, it is entirely proper that the Bill should dealt with it. But if, in the course of the disciplinary procedures which are followed, it is discovered that a police officer committed some purely internal offence —let us say his personal radio set was out of order or he was not carrying his pocket book —these could be matters for discipline which arose from the investigation of the initial case.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Mr. Douglas-Mann rose—

Mr. Griffiths: What the Parliamentary Secretary said in his speech was that it would be a matter for the board. If

he consults his officials, I think he will see that he is entirely mistaken on this point. The Bill does not cover the internal management of the police service.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Perhaps I can disappoint the hon. Gentleman and also please him, which is a happy thing to do. He is wrong in thinking that the advice I have received from my officials implies that the advice I gave the House was wrong. Possibly the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. Clearly, what we are describing as the Regents Park case —in which a police officer was disciplined for not wearing his helmet or something, and which was not the subject of complaint by the public —has nothing to do with the board at all. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I certainly did not intend to give that impression and I did not think I had done so.

Mr. Burden: You did.

Mr. Davidson: I am sorry; I did not think I had.
But there is still a category of case, in which, for instance, a complaint—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the Minister that this is not Committee stage, when interventions can come at any time? This is Report stage. When an hon. Member is addressing the House, if anyone intervenes —Minister or Back Bencher —his intervention should be of reasonable duration. Otherwise, reasonable progress is impossible.

Mr. Davidson: I agree, Mr. Speaker. I thought that I was winding up.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I had in fact completed my remarks, Mr. Speaker, you will be pleased to know.

Mr. Speaker: I was misled by the hon. Member's earlier remarks: I apologise.

Mr. Davidson: So, Mr. Speaker, do I.
There might be a complaint by a member of the public under Section 49 that he had been mistreated or assaulted by a constable. At the same time, he might complain that the officer had been abusive in the way he had spoken. So there would be two complaints. One is obviously a criminal matter, and the


DPP might decide, for evidential reasons, not to prosecute. But that would not in itself be a bar to disciplinary proceedings for the use of abusive language. It might arise from the same incident or it might be separated by minutes, but it is one that the board should see. It is a question of a complaint by the public, it is a question of disciplinary proceedings, and the fact that the major offence of assault had not been the subject of proceedings should not debar the board from seeing what had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings.
It is that sort of matter, which is slightly apart from the Regents Park type of offence, that I was trying to describe. Perhaps hon. Members will now understand it a little better.

Mr. Alison: I should like to speak particularly to our Amendment (a) —

Mr. Speaker: Order. Has not the hon. Member addressed the House already?

Mr. Alison: Only by way of intervention and query, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There is something wrong. When I called the hon. Member, I called him to make a speech. If he says that it was an intervention, I shall have to keep a closer eye on interventions.

Mr. Alison: I shall be very brief.
I want to start by paying tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary. The reason why we keep on speaking is that he is so helpful and constructive that he invites us to probe these matters to get to the truth.
I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would confirm that, as things stand, there are at least three types of case —I hope we shall be able to show that there are four —which do not go to the Police Complaints Board. The first is the case of a complaint which is withdrawn, the second is one which proves to concern internal disciplinary matters and is not directly relevant to a complaint by a member of the public and the third is a case in which the charges are admitted and disciplinary charges are preferred —although the Government propose to change that later in the Bill.
6.45 p.m.
The fourth type of case, on which I continue to have misgivings is that in which the DPP has prosecuted a particular complainant. It is no use the Parliamentary Secretary saying that there are some bits of complaints which may prove susceptible to disciplinary charges after the criminal case has been dealt with. When the new clause was tabled specifying certain kinds of criminal case in which, following an acquittal, there could be no disciplinary charges, there must have been some clear end in view.
It is that isolated sort of case, which the new clause defines as being not susceptible to a disciplinary charge, which I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to confirm cannot itself be referred to the board. It would be nonsense for such a case to be sent to the board. There must have been some intention behind New Clause I, which we have now included in the Bill. We should like confirmation that that type of case, in which disciplinary charges can no longer be preferred, cannot be sent to the board. There would be no purpose, because the board could do nothing about it. If the hon. Gentleman says that it is not necessary for such cases to go to the board, we shall naturally not press our amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE POLICE OF A PERSON ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF A CRIMINAL OFFENCE

'(1) Where a complaint is made by or on behalf of a person accused or convicted of a criminal offence about the conduct of a member of a police force in relation to his arrest, charge or prosecution, the chief officer of police to whom the complaint is made shall, if so requested by or on behalf of the complainant, send to the Police Complaints Board a copy of the complaint if made in writing or of the record of the complaint if made orally.

(2) The Board shall thereupon consider whether the complaint contains allegations which, if they were made out in whole or in part, would in the opinion of the Board cast serious doubt on the validity of any conviction of the complainant for a criminal offence.

(3) If the Board is of the aforesaid opinion it shall so inform the chief officer of police


and the complainant and shall require the complaint to be investigated upon the conclusion of any trial then still pending, and before the hearing of any appeal therefrom (if any such appeal be then pending) and the Board may, if it thinks fit, require the investigation to be carried out by an officer of another police force of such rank as the Board shall direct.

(4) If the Board is satisfied that the subject matter of the complaint cannot be adequately determined by the court of the complainant's trial and that justice to the complainant cannot therefore be done unless the complaint is investigated before the trial, it shall (if so requested by or on behalf of the complainant) require the complaint o be investigated forthwith and shall so inform the chief officer of police and the complainant.

(5) The report of the investigation shall be rendered direct to the Board and if the Board is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice that further investigations should be made the Board shall require such further investigations to be carried out as it thinks fit and the report thereof (hereinafter called the supplementary report) shall be rendered direct to the Board.

(6) Any such investigation shall be completed and the report thereof rendered to the Board regardless of any pending disciplinary proceedings against or prosecution of any member of the police force concerned or any other person or any appeal therefrom.

(7) On receipt of the report (including any supplementary report) the Board shall send to the complainant, to any court before which appeal by the complainant may then be pending, and to any prosecutor acting in such an appeal, a statement of the facts disclosed by the investigation and copies of the statements of any witnesses interviewed in the course of the investigation, with the exception only of such facts and statements as, in the opinion of the Board, should be excluded in the interests of national security or the prevention or detection of crime'.—[Mr. Whitehead.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Whitehead: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am particularly grateful that the House should be able to debate the new clause and those matters which we raised on the last day of the Committee proceedings on 1st April. I look forward with interest to what the Parliamentary Secretary will say about the consultations which have been undertaken and the exact statistics of previous proceedings in which investigations under Section 49 have been brought into evidence between the first conviction or charging of complainants and subsequent proceedings on appeal.
Substantially, what we tried to do with a similar new clause in Committee was

to consider the comparatively rare category of complaints against the police in which the complaint is essentially related to matters like the falsification of evidence and the suborning of witnesses—grave in themselves, but especially grave in that they would lead, perhaps, and sometimes of necessity, to the wrongful conviction of the complainant before the court.
As we said in Committee, the category of complainant dealt with here is precisely of that kind of person who does not know his rights under Section 49 as others know them, and will probably know them even better once the Bill becomes law. This is a small category of people who are themselves, perhaps, somewhat disreputable and are known to be disreputable, and, therefore, to be the kind of people against whom a certain animus, conscious or unconscious, might prevail on the part not only of the police but sometimes of the courts.
For these reasons, we feel that there should be a right for at least a request to be made that the board shall be able to investigate the substance of such a person's complaint before the legal proceedings of appeal in which he has been involved are concluded.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is describing a rather odd category of people, towards whom, he says, there is a certain animus, not only among the police but in the courts. Is he talking about Martians?

Mr. Whitehead: I am talking about a certain category of people to whom I will refer more specifically, if the hon. Member can contain himself.
I said when introducing the Second Reading of the Private Member's Bill on which this is to some degree based that nothing could stand against its time; but if anything has found its time it is what, in this week of all weeks, should be the principle, that there are matters to be investigated, matters still before the court, when there has been an allegation of malpractice of one kind or another by the police. In the last 12 days we have had a number of significant concessions by the Government that justice was not done in what are now quite famous, or notorious, cases.
I referred to two or three of these cases in the Standing Committee proceedings.


We have had the release and free pardon of Patrick Meehan who is quoted in newspapers today as saying he was framed by the police, or perhaps even by the Special Branch, because he was involved in the escape of George Blake from prison. That may or may not be the case, but Meehan at the time of his original arrest and trial made a number of allegations about the nature of the evidence against him and the way it had been acquired, and protested his innocence vehemently during the whole of that period of time and since, a period which can never now be given back to him, the time he was in prison for a crime he did not commit. Nothing, and no form of money provided at the instance of my right hon. Friend or any other agency in this country, can compensate him for the period of mature, adult life that he has lost in prison.
In the Standing Committee proceedings I referred to the Luton murders. I did not at that stage refer to them by name because I knew the matter was under investigation by the Home Office, but my right hon. Friend yesterday quite correctly —and I applaud him for it —referred back to the Court of Appeal the question of the two men who were convicted in the Luton murders, Mr. William Davis and Mr. Patrick Murphy. Again we can see that this is precisely the kind of situation where, if they had been able to have their complaints against a certain officer investigated between the time of their initial conviction for the murders and the hearing of the appeal, a miscarriage of justice might not have taken place. I say "might not" because I must not prejudge what the Court of Appeal may decide in this instance, but I applaud my right hon. Friend's action in referring this case back, I believe for a second time, to the Court of Appeal.
I have referred, though not by name. because there has been a substantial amount of Press and television publicity over the last week on it, to the case of Bruce Brown, the third case I raised in Standing Committee when we were originally discussing the need for these procedures. Bruce Brown was sentenced for his part in a bank robbery. He was refused leave to appeal and is at present in prison. A number of statements have been made about this case. There have

been complaints about the way in which the evidence against him was prepared and the way in which a large amount of money, the proceeds of the robbery for which he was charged, disappeared —it is alleged, at the instance of two police officers who have now left the force. All this, I would submit, has caused grave concern. In the case of Bruce Brown two separate complaints were made to the A10 Division of the Metropolitan Police.
I refer to this case specifically because in the Standing Committee my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said the Government had considered, as an alternative to the clause as framed, a way of allowing a complainant at least to have the results of a Section 49 inquiry laid before the court before that stage. That may be a halfway house, and is what this new clause is proposing.
Let us suppose that had already been in effect at the time of the Bruce Brown hearing. Two separate sources of complaint about the behaviour of these named policemen went to the A10 Division of Scotland Yard. A policewoman —a woman of impeccable reputation—Mrs. Joan Angel, complained formally to New Scotland Yard about the way in which art informer, who had brought about the arrest and identification of the suspect in the case, had been treated. Mrs. Angel complained that the reward money had been paid not to the informer but to a nominee of two police officers. I have here an affidavit from her concerning the case. Mr. Brown's wife approached the A10 Division at New Scotland Yard and made a certain number of complaints, supported by tape recordings, about the behaviour of a particular police officer. Those matters were investigated by A10, but none of this was placed before the court at that stage. It was not admitted in evidence. The actual A10 investigations have not been published.
There is here some evidence of a miscarriage of justice. This case has certainly attracted widespread public comment in the Sunday Times, on London Weekend Television and elsewhere. In this case the man is now in prison and these two police officers have now left the force, one having been required to do so. though neither has been charged with any offence at all. I accept, therefore, that the only way justice will come


to be done in this case is by a public inquiry, which I would support, and for which I call in this case.
Looking ahead to the future and discussing such cases, one comes back to the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies). We can see that there is a category of complaint exemplified by some of these cases which have been very much in the public mind over the last week or two, and on which we can on Report legitimately press the point embodied in the old New Clause 7, now before us as New Clause 3. We can ask my hon. Friend to say, in replying, what he has been able to do, not merely in the consultations which he undertook to carry out with police authorities but also by way of new procedures, allowing a complaint in particular circumstances, where such complaint is neither frivolous nor malicious, nor a rogues' charter as mentioned by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) in Committee, but is a serious matter which could bear on justice in a case before the court. Will he say how he will allow such complaint to be investigated in the future before that stage?
I should particularly like to ask, first, how far have these consultations proceeded? Knowing what we know about the snail-like pace of consultations in preparation for this Bill and through the various working parties set up, I should like to know if thus far he has been able to get an adequate process of consultation and reply from the various police authorities concerned, and whether there is still the wide divergence that there was, at the time of the Committee proceedings, between the practices of the Metropolitan Police with the A10 Division and the practices of a number of other forces which do not have even this system of investigation of a complainant's allegation that the evidence brought against him by the police is the result of serious malpractice.
Thirdly, could my hon. Friend tell us how many such interventions there have been invoking the existing Section 49 procedures, never mind what we are now suggesting should he ipso facto the role of the Complaints Board? How often is it possible to have this kind of serious complaint investigation under

Section 49, not after a complainant has had his initial case and appeal heard, and in some cases, like that of Bruce Brown, has had leave to appeal turned down and is in prison? How often has there been a Section 49 inquiry before a complainant has actually been consigned to prison after the failure of his appeal? Unless my hon. Friend can tell me of a significant number of such cases in instances where there is grave cause for concern about present malpractice, I would suggest to him and to the House that the principles embodied in New Clause 3 should be put into the Bill. In fact, that is the best way of rectifying a system that has led in some cases —I accept that they are isolated instances, but isolated and scandalous instances —to grave miscarriages of justice.
7.0 p.m.
I should be very interested to hear what reaction my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has had from the police and the police authorities to the notion that there should be a more widespread inquiry under Section 49, as he appeared to concede in principle in Committee, or even what reaction he has had to the proposals that my hon. Friends and I have put forward for this investigation to be carried out in some cases by the Police Complaints Board. I am not happy at all with the proposal that it should be only as a result of a public inquiry or a special investigation by the Home Office under Section 50 that we get an investigation of this kind of scandalous situation—which is comparatively rare but all the more scandalous when it arises—and innocent men, released from prison.
I hope that I have said enough, mentioning just a few cases—there are others that I could have mentioned, including some that are in the public eye at present —to indicate that there is serious cause for concern here and that there are some areas of complaint that must be investigated before the complainant has gone through all the courts and has finally been consigned to prison.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Let me say at once that the Government are not unsympathetic to the concept underlying the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). I concede, as I did in Committee, that there can be a problem when the


same or similar issues arise in the context of criminal proceedings, on the one hand, and in the context of a Section 49 complaint against the police, on the other hand. The Government would like to tackle the problem if they possibly could.
Perhaps I may explain in some detail some of the difficulties. It may avoid some of the traditional interventions that occur during my speeches. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me, because a very important principle is involved.
The problem tends to arise most acutely, as I think my hon. Friend would agree, in a small number of rather difficult cases. However, I think that I would be misleading my hon. Friend and the House if I were to give the impression that any major change in procedures is likely to be possible in the near future. There are many difficulties of principle and practice in the way. Also—if 1 dare mention this —there are resource constraints in the present climate of restrictions on recruitment of manpower and on Government expenditure.
When we discussed this matter in Committee I dealt with some of the major difficulties. I dealt with them in the context of this very clause. I said then, and I ought to make it clear now, that the Government do not see any role for the Police Complaints Board in this matter. The board's job is to provide an independent element in the handling of complaints against the police. It cannot provide a remedy as such for the complainant, and it cannot and must not intervene in criminal proceedings. Any changes can and should, more appropriately, therefore, be dealt with by administrative action.
Secondly, I explained the problems—they are considerable problems —about carrying out Section 49 investigations while proceedings are pending. I explained some of the real practical problems which affect both the police and the accused. The investigation must usually begin with the complainant being interviewed and questioned as to the details of his complaint, and a statement must be taken from him, provided that he desires to make a statement. Such an inquiry involves an examination of the complainant on matters touching upon the offence with which he has been

charged, an offence which is still subject to determination by the court. Such an investigation is open to criticism—indeed, criticism by the complainant —in that it facilitates or may facilitate the obtaining of incriminating evidence from the complainant and the exposing of his defence to the pending proceedings. That is a serious difficulty that the House must face.
Further, if the interview is to be carried out properly, and in the way that the police do carry out their interviews, it might involve the identification of witnesses whom the defence propose to call. The investigating officer, if he is to do his job properly, will need to interview those witnesses, if the investigation is pursued, with a view to taking statements from them.
A further objection to the complainant being interviewed is that he would require to be cautioned before being questioned. Many complaints are made by accused persons, in and out of court, that they are not properly cautioned. Any statements made by the complainant and any possible witnesses would be available to the prosecuting solicitor for use by the prosecution. To caution the complainant in those circumstances could inhibit him from supplying any information, and might be regarded by him as having the effect of discouraging him from pursuing his complaint.
For those reasons the Government think it inappropriate that, in other than a small minority of exceptional cases, investigation of a Section 49 complaint should precede the trial of a related criminal charge. I hope that the House will accept that those are serious practical difficulties.
Assuming, therefore, that we are looking for some way of increasing flexibility —and there ought to be increased flexibility—between trial and appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, the third major difficulty is to devise some means of isolating the minority of cases, in which there is a genuine possibility that the investigation of the Section 49 complaint may bring forward evidence relevant to the accused's guilt or innocence on the criminal charge, from the many cases in which this is not so.
It should be recognised that, if there is movement here, a great many people


will be tempted—it is naive to pretend otherwise—to make a Section 49 complaint as a means if for no other reason, of getting a second look at their conviction, even if the complaint has no merit. If it becomes the general practice to have a second look at everything, any arrangements that could be devised with the best of intentions could well become unworkable. Indeed, the people who would suffer from this would be those who have a genuine grievance.
Assuming that the genuine cases can be isolated from the rest, there will be a need to identify and put forward relevant information arising in the course of the investigation in a form which the Court of Appeal can handle, and to limit what is put to the court to only that material which is relevant to the question of guilt or innocence of the accused. This will require time and expertise on the part of those who evaluate and present the evidence.
That said, my right hon. Friend has explored with the police organisations the proposal that there might be advantage in rather greater flexibility in carrying out Section 49 investigations between trial and appeal than it seemed to us had occurred under the present arrangements. The position at present is that discretion on this matter rests with chief officers except to the extent that a further investigation is requested by, say, the Court of Criminal Appeal itself or the Director of Public Prosecutions. I can tell my hon. Friend that the inquiries that my right hon. Friend has carried out confirm that there is some variation in practice. In certain parts of the country, notably in London, there is greater flexibility at present than, perhaps, my hon. Friend may have realised.
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs my right hon. Friend that in the Metropolitan Police District investigations, not necessarily arising only out of Section 49 complaints, have on occasion taken place between trial and appeal in the following circumstances: first, when information about police documents or the examination of exhibits has been requested by the appellant, either direct or through the Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal; secondly, at the request of the trial judge; and, thirdly, because matters came to the attention of the police, quite outside the

context of any complaint or request by the appellant, which threw doubt on the validity of the conviction.

Mr. Whitehead: Specifically on this point about the Metropolitan Police—in intervening, I shall confine myself to precisely this point—I accept that there is greater flexibility in the Metropolitan Police and that the A10 investigations take place, but in the case which I mentioned, where it was a police officer, Mrs. Angel, who complained of the activities of two other policemen and alleged malpractices, the A10 investigation was said to be inconclusive, and no action was taken then or later against those officers. How else is it possible, other than by recourse to an ex post facto independent procedure, for such a complainant to receive any satisfaction?

Mr. Davidson: I accept that there is a difficulty, and I have never hidden that fact. Obviously I cannot comment on the facts of individual cases.
The Commissioner has informed my right hon. Friend that in some cases, where the Metropolitan Police have had doubts about whether it was proper to continue with an investigation prior to the hearing of an appeal, they have written to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal explaining why they considered that the investigation should take place forthwith and stating that, unless the court objected, it would go ahead. There is certainly no automatic investigation at the option of the defendant, but the current practice in London appears to be that the prosecuting solicitor or counsel is informed of any relevant complaint and of its nature and that he decides when an investigation should take place, seeking advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions in cases of difficulty.
There does not seem to be the same flexibility in other parts of the country, and some of the police organisations at any rate are reluctant to move further in this direction. They fear confusion and complication if the investigation of a complaint proceeds at the same time as criminal proceedings and think that this might have a prejudicial effect on their members. My right hon. Friend proposes, however, to continue his discussions with those concerned, with the intention of exploring whether the practice


presently adopted in the Metropolitan District might be more generally adopted. I should like to make it clear, however, that if there were to be this greater flexibility, the defence would have to be prepared to provide access to their witnesses for the purpose of the Section 49 investigation.
It is, of course, necessary to consider how best any relevant material arising from any police investigation shall be made available to the Appeal Court. It is true that, under Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the Court of Appeal has wide powers to receive evidence, but if greater flexibility in the present arrangements concerning police investigations proved possible, the Government would need to consider whether any consequential modifications in present procedures would be necessary with regard to the ways in which relevant evidence arising from the investigation could be brought before the court. This needs to be looked at very carefully, and my right hon. Friend will be looking at it further in the context of the consultations to which he has referred.
7.15 p.m.
As I said, my right hon. Friend has had his preliminary talks with the police representative organisations. He has had discussions with officials of the DDP's office with the Court of Appeal. These discussions are continuing. It is a difficult matter. I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend is trying to put forward, as, I am sure, has everyone. It would be quite wrong for someone to be convicted on perjured evidence and languish in gaol as a result. I hope, however, that the practical difficulties to which I have referred, in what, I hope, has been an excusably lengthy speech, will cause my hon. Friend at least to realise that the Government are very serious about their consultations, and that, in the circumstances, he may feel inclined not to press his new clause.

Mr. Whitehead: Can my hon. Friend say whether the consultations will be completed before the Bill has gone through the House of Lords?

Mr. Davidson: I am afraid that I could not possibly say that.

Mr. Aitken: In the soporific atmosphere now pervading the Chamber, the

impression may be getting abroad that this clause—and, indeed, the whole Bill—is somehow uncontroversial. It is about time that it was clearly said that the whole Bill is the 1976 equivalent of the groundnuts scheme. It is incredibly expensive, excessively bureaucratic, administratively unworkable and absolutely irrelevant to the first duty of the police, which is fighting the war against crime.
When I heard the Parliamentary Secretary speaking of the difficulties which would be encountered because of the human and financial resources which the clause involved, it struck me that he might well have thought of that before introducing the Bill, because it is more germane to that than to this clause.
There are a number of very basic and solid objections to the clause, and they can be summarised in this way. First, it will usurp the power of the courts. Secondly, it will be an open invitation to anyone charged with a criminal offence to obfuscate the whole issue by alleging a number of outrageous complaints which will have to be investigated and assessed by the Police Complaints Board. It is a fairly standard off-the-shelf reaction among certain criminals to claim, when accused of a criminal offence, that they were beaten up by the police, that confessions were forced out of them, that "verbals" at the time of arrest were invented or that evidence was "planted". I do not say that actions of that kind never occur—indeed, this would be a bad week in which to do so—but they are extremely rare in relation to the number of times that allegations of that kind are made.
If such allegations are made, invariably they are brought up in the courts and listened to carefully by a judge and jury. The fundamental objection here which the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) appears to have overlooked is that the courts themselves listen carefully to allegations of this kind and they assess them and decide them.
Suddenly we are told that the Police Complaints Board is to be mightier than the courts. Hard cases make bad law and bad new clauses. We are in danger, if we accept the new clause, of creating a camel to strain at one or two gnats.
There are numerous routes by which a genuine case where injustice has been


done can be investigated and can be remedied. One well-known remedy is for the case to go back to A10. I am at the moment handling the case of a Mr. Westbrook. A10 is investigating its original investigation. The alternative is the one adopted by many hon. Members of taking cases direct to the Home Secretary. But this small and isolated number of cases for which there are remedies are not so numerous that we have to bring into existence this gigantic new apparatus and give new powers to the board to cope with them. As I say, this would be usurping the power of the courts.
I found myself in considerable sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary when he spoke of the great difficulties involved in carrying out Section 49 investigations in the course of criminal proceedings. He was right to say that a defendant's own defence might well be revealed and prejudiced in advance. Above all, he was right to say that a great many defendants would be tempted to use a Section 49 investigation by the board as a means of delaying their own convictions and of trying yet another bogus escape route, even when there was no merit in their complaints.
In Committee the hon. Member for Derby, North originally used the phrase "a rogue's charter". The original user of it was not my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). In fact, that is exactly what the clause could become.

Mr. Whitehead: In Committee I was quoting the words of "Dogberry" in a police magazine. I do not claim any authorship of "a rogue's charter".

Mr. Aitken: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. It is true that the phrase was used in the interrogative sense. The hon. Gentleman may have been quoting from another source. However, the phrase emerged not from the lips of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst but in a quoted form from the lips of the hon. Member for Derby, North.
It is correct to say that the clause could become a rogue's charter. It could be an invitation to a "regular" to create a smoke-screen to delay criminal proceedings. We should rely on the good sense and the good justice of our courts. I reject the suggestion that there is a category of persons towards whom both the police and the courts have a hostile

animus. That is why I asked whether it was a reference to Martians. I cannot think of any earthly category of persons to whom all the judges and all the police are universally hostile. I accept that there may be individual personality clashes and difficulties, but to say that there is one large category of persons who form a hated group is nonsense.
We cannot allow the powers of the courts to be usurped in this way. We cannot allow a rogue's charter to be established. The House should reject the clause.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I cannot say that I am puzzled by the remarks of the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken). Throughout the Committee, having supported the measure on Second Reading, he attacked the whole Bill rather than making detailed points. To take up his remarks about the House becoming soporific, it seemed that he was himself in danger of going to sleep and that he wanted to make his Third Reading speech at this stage.
Having heard the reply of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, there are those of my hon. Friends who may be very disappointed. The history of the demand for an independent board and an independent system of inquiry into complaints against the police did not arise because of the way in which perhaps 99 per cent. of complaints have been dealt with over the years. Most people feel that for the vast majority of complaints that are made the present procedure is perfectly all right. The demand that grew up for an independent inquiry into complaints against the police occurred because of the small number of cases that disturbed people. It is those cases, some of which have been referred to tonight, that produced the campaign for this measure.
That is the way in which the Bill or the Act, as it will become, will be tested. The question will be asked "Does it meet the requirements of those who pressed for it?" I feel that we have marginally improved the way in which we deal with the vast majority of complaints, but we have not made a significant alteration. When we consider the serious complaints, I feel that the Bill fails to grasp the nettle. I know that there is a problem, but we


must do something about the very difficult complaints. In my view it is not worth having this measure unless we do so. If we fail to take that action, there will be an ongoing campaign to make the Bill effective in the really difficult cases.
If there is a complaint against the police, it is important that it should be investigated as quickly as possible. One of the major problems in the present procedure is the amount of time that elapses. I am sure that no one in the House can think back to events that took place 12 months ago anything like as clearly as they can recall events that took place recently. That is one of the major elements in any investigative procedure. It is vital that investigation should start quickly.
We have been told that there is the difficulty of costs. I suggest that it is much more important that we should spend the money on the difficult cases, in which there can be a major miscarriage of justice, instead of spending marginally to improve the way in which we administer the minor complaints.
Much emphasis is placed on the period after the first court case and before an appeal. Surely at that stage there are few of the difficulties that have been suggested in the interviewing of witnesses. Most of the witnesses will already have put forward their evidence in the first court case.
Notwithstanding the failure of the Government to give specific undertakings, I think that the House would be well advised to accept the clause and to strengthen the Bill in an area in which there has been a major campaign—namely, the area of the very difficult cases which can result in a serious miscarriage of justice. I hope that the House will accept the clause.

Mr. Hooley: It is probably common ground that, although all offences which can be committed by policemen in the course of their duty are unfortunate and are to be deplored, the most serious offence that a policeman can commit is one which leads by its nature to the conviction and sentencing of an innocent person. That is surely the most damaging and deplorable action that anyone can take, quite apart from a policeman. To

perpetrate action, or to omit action which he should properly take, as a result of which an innocent person may be convicted of an offence as serious as murder or robbery with violence, for example, is surely the most damaging behaviour. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Mr. Whitehead) and others of my hon. Friends are right to press that point home now as they did in Committee
The hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) said that such cases are not numerous. Again, I think that that is common gound. That rather reduces the hon. Member's objection to having a procedure for dealing with those cases. We are not suggesting any extra machinery or special machinery. The Police Complaints Board will exist when the Bill is enacted. We are not suggesting the establishment of another complaints board or another set of machinery. The Police Complaints Board will be three and the staff will be there. It will be available to do its job and to deal with the difficult cases, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, are not numerous. It is common ground that they are not likely to be numerous, but they will be serious.
It seems to be assumed by the Government Front Bench and by the Opposition that the Board must go into a thorough investigation of any complaint that is made. That is not so. The clause states:
the board shall…consider whether the complaint contains allegations which, if they were made out…would in the opinion of the board cast…doubts on the validity of any conviction".
The board is not bound to come to that conclusion. I accept that it might seem to certain people who are on trial that this is a technique for evading conviction or postponing the evil day, but it is clear from the clause that there is no automatic right of investigation of any complaint of this nature that is made. All that it provides is that there will be a right of complaint to the board. However, the board will decide whether the nature of the complaint is such that it could cast serious doubt on the validity of a conviction.

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that the process by which weak complaints are to be sifted


from serious ones will be quick and easy. The clause states:
the Board shall thereupon consider whether the complaint contains allegations which, if they were serious".
Any allegation per se which involves the planting of evidence, must, by its very nature, involve a serious investigation by the board. An allegation of a sort which might result in a difficult conviction has only to be made for the whole complaint to be seriously considered. It will not be a short process.

Mr. Hooley: I am not saying that it will necessarily be a short process. That is a matter that the board will determine. I am saying that there is no automatic right of investigation. If a complaint is produced, whether it is good, bad or indifferent, it does not mean that the board must thereupon investigate it. The board must consider whatever facts are presented, but it is not forced to go into a detailed investigation in every case. The board is free to exercise its own judgment.
7.30 p.m.
It has been suggested that the board will in some way be usurping the functions of the courts to determine innocence or guilt. I do not think that that construction can be placed upon the new clause. At the end of the day, when the board has investigated the complaint—not crime—its only duty is to make its findings available to the prosecution, the court, the complainant and, presumably, the defence. What action the court then takes or what weight it places on the results of those findings is for the court alone. The board has no further standing in the matter thereafter.
However, it is important that the board shall have brought to the light of day the nature of the complaint or malpractice, if any, and have given the prosecution, the court, the defence and all concerned full knowledge of the facts. That procedure is reasonable and does not require extra machinery. It does not put special burdens on the system as such. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be more forthcoming than he has been so far on this idea.

Mr. John Loveridge: I did not have the pleasure of listening to the Committee's deliberations. Therefore,

it is with some trepidation that I intervene in the debate. I do so because of my interest in the argument deployed by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) in favour of the new clause. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, there must be a good deal of sympathy with that argument in the House.
Why have a separate board to investigate complaints if it is not to be effective in even a few cases? The board's knowledge could possibly help justice in those few cases in the event of appeal.
I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) said about the natural temptation for criminals to make false accusations against the police. Speaking as a magistrate, I think that courts generally take that matter into account as well as the natural wish of the police to secure a proper conviction. Therefore, what my hon. Friend said is right in almost all cases, but there will be the protection of the court and, in the end, of the appeal, so that justice will be done.
I recall one case—a rather childish case, and I shall not burden the House with the detail of it—about a melee during the course of which a policeman's helmet was knocked off and kicked away. The two police officers who gave evidence against the defendant were proved by the defendant to be utterly incorrect in what they said. There was no question of perjury. The defendant was in the peculiar position of having been a police officer for many years. That fact was not known to the two police officers at the time of the arrest. Therefore, the defendant was able to bring before the court evidence of a special nature from his own knowledge which demonstrated that he could not have commited the small crime with which he was charged. In that case justice was done and he got off. After the case. I wondered what would have happened if that man had not had the special knowledge that he gained by having been a policeman.
The question may be asked, how would that affect this issue? Had a complaint been laid and investigated in advance of the matter being brought to court, I dare say that the chief officer in charge would have applied to the court to withdraw the case as the police did not wish to present further evidence. As it was, the defendant knew that he was on strong


ground because of his special knowledge and that he would be acquitted, as he was. That is the kind of case, though not of great consequence, that could be affected in the way proposed in the new clause.
I appreciate what the Parliamentary Secretary said about the grave technical difficulties which would ensue for the police and all concerned with these cases if the new clause were accepted. Will the hon. Gentleman, through his Department, try to ensure that the administrative procedures about which he spoke are checked thoroughly so that, where there is any element of doubt, there can be some delay, if necessary, to enable defending counsel to have any information at the conclusion of an inquiry which might help the defendant? I think that is the proper way to handle these matters. Of course it will not satisfy everybody, because it will not be visible to the public at large. None the less, if the Home Office will try to ensure that that is done, I think it would be the most satisfactory way to deal with the matter.
There is another aspect. If a police officer is convicted of perjury—I am not specifying a particular case—where such perjury would have changed the outcome for the defendant, are any procedures applied to past cases in which that officer has given evidence and secured convictions? Are past cases looked into to make sure that no previous instances of perjury have occurred thereby giving rise to wrongful convictions?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am glad to have had qualified support from the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Loveridge) for the new clause. The provisions of the clause, whether accepted in their entirety or not, lie at the heart of an effective police complaints procedure.

Mr. Loveridge: I should like to put the record straight. I did not feel able to support the clause for the reasons which I gave. I supported the principle behind the clause. I said that it had my sympathy.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support of the spirit of the clause, if not the entire wording of it. I accept that the provisions of the clause require parliamentary draftsmanship, notwithstanding

the respect that I have for the draftsmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead).
I was disappointed by the complacency with which my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary viewed the proposals in the new clause. It is implicit in what he and the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) said that there is an overwhelming probability that a man who is charged is guilty of a criminal offence, so that it is not worth investigating his side of the case first.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: My hon. Friend shakes his head, but it is implicit that if a man is charged with a criminal offence it is not worth investigating his contention "Not only did I not do it, but the two police officers who are accusing me of it are lying. They know that I did not do it, but they are doing this for their own purposes." I accept that in very many cases people put forward that kind of allegation when it is not true. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend must accept that this happens—people are prosecuted by the police in circumstances in which the police are perjuring themselves.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: My hon. Friend interrupted me several times, so he must allow me to make the briefest intervention in his speech. He is wrong to say that I am complacent. My reply was anything but complacent. Of course I acknowledge—anyone would—that there are cases where the police behave improperly and cases involving corrupt officers. But my hon. Friend must not think that the postition is easy and accuse other people of being complacent. It is a very serious problem indeed.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I withdraw the word "complacent". But even if my hon. Friend's attitude is not complacent, the effect of his actions confirms the complacency with which the authorities view the situation. When we have a position in which a man is charged with a criminal offence in circumstances in which he can produce evidence tending to show that the accusations are false, and that the evidence the police present in seeking his conviction is false, or was "planted" or secured in an improper


fashion, it is right that not only the defendant's case should be investigated but the prosecution's case should be investigated as well.
My hon. Friend has practised as a lawyer, as I have done. He must know that there are a considerable number of cases—admittedly it is a minority, but it is still a significant number—in which the police, having made an arrest for one thing, find out they have made a mistake and produce something else in order to get a conviction. I know of at least two cases in which this has happened and in which it would have been highly desirable to have had an investigation into whether the accused was properly charged before the case actually came to court to be heard. In cases like this, very often by the time the defendant has been acquitted and awarded costs the trail has gone cold. It is impossible to establish which police officers were in the station at the time, who was responsible for the assaults and who was responsible for altering the evidence. These matters require investigation from the outset.
7.45 p.m.
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Robert Mark, announced the other day that 400 police officers had been required to leave the service over the past four years. It is difficult to suppose that a substantial number had not had complaints made against them. It is difficult to imagine that, even with the procedures that we have in the Bill, these cases will be effectively solved. What we need is a more uniform procedure for ensuring that, where there is reasonable ground for suspicion that the evidence which is to be presented to the court is not true, or there are reasonable grounds for suspicion or perjury, planting of evidence or bribery, there should be an investigation at the beginning, while the trail is still warm and it is possible to find the information.

Mr. Alison: But there is bound to be an investigation if a complaint is made. This is a serious criminal charge, and it does not need a new clause to initiate an investigation as long as a complaint is made.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: The practice varies very widely in different parts of the country. In some areas if there is a serious allegation it is investigated

straight away. My hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that in certain circumstances that is the practice in London, for example. But certainly in the past, and even now in many parts of the country, such allegations can be made, but not until the case is finally over is there an investigation; and even then it is dependent on the luck of the draw, on whether the jury has believed the complainant or the police, because if the defendant has been convicted there is little likelihood of a serious investigation. The complaint has gone by default.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Member is talking about allegations. I am talking about complaints. If a complaint is made by a chap that the police have committed perjury, planted evidence or been involved in bribery, Section 49(3) of the Police Act means that axiomatically an investigation must follow.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: It does not follow immediately. There is nothing in that section which requires an investigation to be made immediately. Very often the investigation is not made immediately and frequently it does not really take place at all, if the complainant has been found guilty. Only in exceptional cases does it take place while criminal proceedings are pending. The attitude is usually "Wait for the court case to be finished, and then we will investigate. "That is not a satisfactory situation in circumstances where there is a reasonable ground for thinking that the police might be perjuring themselves, that they might have been bribed or that they might have planted evidence. 
I realise that there are difficulties with the procedures. The number of cases in which an allegation is made falsely vastly exceeds the number in which it is made justly. I accept that. We need a device to sift out the categories of complaints. I suggest that, where such a matter goes to the board, the board should attach importance to whether or not the legal representative of the defendant says that in his opinion, and in the light of investigation, he was firmly of the view that it was a matter which required investigation before the court case. The board should be much more ready to direct that an investigation should take place.
The board has no absolute duty to investigate. It is correct that the board


must require the chief officer to carry out investigation of the allegations—this is the very minimum required. Only under subsection (4) would the board specify that the matter required to be dealt with before the court proceedings were heard and that the full machinery should be put into effect. The board has a substantial discretion under the clause.
As the Bill stands, without some procedure for ensuring more effective means of investigating the allegations of criminal behaviour on the part of the police prior to the hearing of the court case against the complainant, we shall continue to have miscarriages of justice. Anyone who has practised in criminal courts cannot be unaware of the tendency of police officers, once they "know" that a defendent is guilty, to indulge in "bending" of the evidence, which is considered legitimate to secure a conviction on someone they "know" is a villain. That is understandable when one considers the problems that the police have in dealing with crime, but it is something which we cannot tolerate, and the House should not accept its perpetuation.
Without something along the lines of this new clause, the Bill is not effective to prevent serious miscarriages of justice. The provisions in the new clause would need to be used carefully and with discretion, but I urge the Government to consider introducing a further amendment at a later stage, if the clause is not carried tonight, to ensure that there is a more uniform procedure for investigating these matters before the court case.
There are cases in which the burden of proving the guilt or innocence of the defendant or the police is fairly evenly balanced. There are even cases where police are involved in criminal activities and seek to discharge their guilt on to the defendant in criminal proceedings. There is a very grave danger that the jury will accept the perjured evidence of the police and not the true evidence of the defendant. I accept that it does not happen frequently, but it happens and we must have a procedure in those circumstances for investigation to ensure that it is avoided.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have listened carefully to the hon. Member both this evening and in Committee and I have some sympathy with his anxieties. I hope that he will accept, however, that in his anxiety to deal with a very few cases of bent or perjuring policemen he is in danger of creating a very much greater evil in placing large numbers of policemen improperly at risk.
It is important that the House should get this matter into perspective. Of course, there are police officers who perjure. But I ask hon. Members to accept that for every police officer who may perjure there are hundreds of old lags who perjure against the police. In our anxiety to deal with the minority of policemen we should not forget the danger of opening the door to a much greater number of perjuries against the police.
The new clause is ingeniously drafted, and under it the man under accusation would be able to make certain allegations and, I believe, to start to interfere with the course of justice. There is also the case of the man already convicted and in most cases already in gaol. I accept that people have been wrongly convicted on perjured or bent evidence.
The greater danger—and here I rely to some extent upon my constituency experience—is that many men, having been quite properly convicted on the evidence and sent to gaol, will lie in their cells nursing a grievance and spending much of their time writing letters making accusations against those who have secured their conviction. On many occasions they write to their Members of Parliament. There must be very few hon. Members who do not regularly receive letters from convicted felons.
To those who write them the letters seem perfectly reasonable. But they are based upon grievance and upon the fact that none of us finds it easy to accept their guilt, even when a court has properly found them guilty.
While I have a lot of sympathy with the clause, I believe that it will open the door to a much greater danger. Perhaps I may illustrate what I mean. There is, first, the case of the man who, while accused, wishes to make an allegation which would trigger off the hon. Gentleman's clause. One recent example of


this was Mr. Norman Scott. I hope that I need say no more about that. That is an illustration of the kind of charge which can be made by a man under accusation in a court, a charge which may do immense damage.
The other case is what I would call the Colonel Cheeseman case. Wild charges have been made by that gentleman. Let us suppose that he had been before a court of law under accusation. As drafted the clause would enable the whole procedure to be activated, not so much by the evidence, but by the seriousness of the allegation, and there could hardly be more serious allegations than those made by that gentleman.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: The hon. Member has cited two examples, neither of which entails complaints against the police. But, to take a more realistic example, does he agree that if these wild complaints to which he is referring had been investigated before the cases came to court, there would be much less opportunity for the defendant to say that the police officer had been perjuring himself?

Mr. Griffiths: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I chose those two cases because that kind of irresponsible charge, securing the widest possible publicity and often for the worst possible reasons, can be made. The clause is virtually a charter for many old lags putting forward precisely that sort of charge, not because they necessarily feel that they are aggrieved but because they had determined in advance that the police officers who arrested them would have to be made to pay.
Many police officers, especially in the Metropolitan Police CID have suffered the experience when arresting or even cautioning a man with a well-known criminal record, and who may have been in gaol before, or being told "You arrest me and I will do you for assault". That is a common reaction these days of men who are investigated.

Mr. Christopher Price: In raising the Scott and Cheeseman cases, which I agree have many lessons for this House, is not the hon. Gentleman commenting far more on the methods and ethics of our Press and other media and the way in which

they treat unsubstantiated evidence than he is about the Bill? Can any old lag, attempting to activate the clause, create the sort of publicity—which is the real problem—which arose in the Scott and Cheeseman cases?

Mr. Mikardo: Perhaps I may put a similar point. The hon. Member will have had letters from constituents saying that if he does not do something about particular cases they will write to the newspapers about them. There are many people who believe in making a stink in the Press because they have no other recourse. They are sometimes wrong in that action. The provision of some other recourse, as is proposed by the clause, would decrease, not increase, the Scotts and Cheesemans.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the hon. Member believe that the board would be a substitute for the statements of accused people in open court? In practice, frequently the accused person would have some outburst in open court and the matter would then have to go to the board. If the hon. Member has some secret way in which he could ensure tnat those accused would only make their outburst to the board and to no one else, he would have a point. But that is not the case. Under the clause the board would be required to act where these outbursts were made in open court, with all the attendant publicity. That is why the clause is dangerous and why the Government are right to resist it.
8.0 p.m.
Subsection (4) virtually puts the board in the position of impugning the competence of the courts, because if the board is not satisfied that the subject matter of the complaint can be adequately determined by the court, it can require the complaint to be investigated. It requires that the complaints board can decide that a court of law, when holding a trial, cannot do its job. We should not set up a statutory body with that responsibility.
The drafting of subsection (7) is extraordinary. It says that when the board has caused an additional investigation to take place and has got the result, it shall supply a copy of those results only to the prosecutor. I do not understand that. If the new material has any validity, it


should be supplied to both the prosecutor and the defence.

Mr. Whitehead: Is it not clear that subsection (7) provides that the board shall send it to the complainant and the prosecutor?

Mr. Griffiths: I understand that, but it is extremely important that a copy should go to the police. That is not covered. After all, the complaint will be against a police officer.
If the Government accept the clause, they might amend it accordingly. But it is important that we do not have a piece of drafting which is only approximately right. It has to be dead right. It is not.
The Minister said that it would be necessary to exclude all those cases where the board concluded that the handing over of supplementary evidence would affect the interests of national security or the prevention or detection of crime. If the board acted in that way, it could compromise investigations in which the police were already engaged, and I am sure the Minister does not want to do that. He has recognised that there could be matters of national security but he has blown a hole in his case because, as he said, further investigation must not compromise the work that the police may be doing on some related investigation. He reduces the situation not quite to absurdity, but he makes it ineffective. That matter needs to be considered and the Bill does not deal with it.
When a man is charged, issues might emerge in the trial that should be investigated. The Government are right to reject the new clause and one of my hon. Friends put his finger on it when he said that in practice it would become a rogues' charter. None of us wants that.

Mr. Christopher Price: I come to the Report stage as an innocent of the Committee. At that time I was down the corridor doing something else. To that extent I have not been privy to the long discussions on this subject in Committee.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) made a reasonable speech which could, in the final resort, lead to a compromise. The cases which might be embraced by the courts

involving national security or sensitive, continuing investigations will represent a small minority of the cases which the clause is intended to embrace. The clause attempts to do a job, the need for which the House has always beeen conscious. In cases where a miscarriage of justice has taken place, the clause will cut down the time spent in gaol by those people who are eventually freed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) was right to say that the problem involves not just the absolutely corrupt policeman. It is a problem of over-zealousness. It concerns the policeman who is absolutely certain of someone's guilt and who considers it right in his book—sometimes condoned by his superiors—to bend the evidence so that a "guilty" verdict is reached. Over-zealousness is a greater danger to the image of British justice than the type of corruption which the House and Sir Robert Mark have been so enthusiastic in attempting to eliminate.
My interest arises from a case involving three of my constituents which became known as the Confait case. They were arrested in March 1972 and convicted in October 1972. They were not constituents of mine at that time because I was then taking a rest from the House. Their appeal was finally heard in June 1973 and they were acquitted in October 1975 on a reference by the Court of Appeal after two police investigations. Those three innocent youngsters, two of whom were mentally retarded, spent three-and-a-half years in gaol after being convicted on charges of murder, manslaughter and arson—crimes which they could not have committed—having gone through all the processes of the courts with highly-paid barristers defending them.
That case illustrates that our processes of law, although not bad, are not perfect. We must never become complacent and feel that whatever verdict a court or the Court of Appeal decides must of necessity be right. More information from a responsible board about the processes which concern the police would improve the administration of justice rather than retard it.
I do not want to say too much about this case because an investigation into it


has been started, although now suspended. But I am convinced that in this case, had there been the type of investigatory procedures that are contained in the Bill, my constituents would not have spent so long in custody. It would have reduced public expenditure and effort. It would have prevented television programmes which, unfortunately, publicly cast doubt on the processes of law and the standards of our police. All that would have been prevented because the investigations would have taken place quietly without the unfortunate and appalling blaze of publicity which made it difficult for the police, difficult for the boys and their families and was expensive.
I also believe that once such a process was seen to be working in a responsible way many policemen, particularly senior policemen, would welcome it. The policeman involved in the Confait case went on to carry out two very controversial investigations. I believe that the force generally would be assisted by such a process, especially when doubts were raised about matters involving particular policemen. The accusations would not hang over them for such a long time.

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman may well be right, in that in 1 per cent. of these difficult and unhappy cases the police would be assisted. But is it a right price to pay for the 99 per cent. when the police, far from being assisted, would be virtually swamped by all kinds of new procedures which, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, would diminish their manpower resources and generally make them much less effective?

Mr. Price: I take the point that the Opposition are making, that every time Parliament introduces new processes and procedures it is not clear for a year or so after they have been working just what the reaction will be. One can go back over the years and read the debates about the terrible things that it was said would happen if we did certain things.

Mr. Hooley: The Ombudsman.

Mr. Price: That is a case in point where nothing happened. An even better example is our introduction of a lay observer to look over the activities of solicitors. He has received so little publicity that so far as I can see nobody

goes near him. I wish he had a bit more publicity.
Although I understand the genuine fears of the ordinary policeman that this sort of procedure might subject him to pressures and difficulties which might impede his work and that of his colleagues, I believe that the procedures outlined here would not generate a rush of complaints, that the board would act responsibly, and that when the procedures had been running for a few years they would aid the administration of justice and of the police. Everybody would then wonder why we had not carried out the reform before.
I realise that there may he flaws in the drafting, but I appeal to both my hon. Friends—one of whom is well aware of the case which I have just outlined— to respond sympathetically to the new clause. Many of the speeches by Opposition Members have not been in the absolute terms that we so often hear on this sort of Bill. There is a real possibility of a traditional parliamentary agreement on how we should deal with the matter. If the Bill went forward ignoring this problem, an important and sizeable gap in it would remain.

Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary should not be surprised—and I am sure that he is not—by the extent of the identity of outlook between the two sides of the House in general, if not in detail, on the provisions that the Bill should have. That identity of outlook existed during the whole of the long proceedings in Committee. It became more and more apparent as time went on.
8.15 p.m.
The reason is that all of us who were involved were agreed, first, that the present arrangements for investigating cases against the police would not do, and, secondly, that that situation would continue so long as complaints against the police were investigated by the police. That would still be so, even if every investigation were meticulous to 110 per cent. Even if justice were done to 110 per cent. in every investigation, it would not be seen to be done.
Without public confidence in them, the police cannot do their job properly. Without it, the task of the police, already very


difficult, becomes almost super-humanly difficult. Confidence will not be established until there is a method of investigating complaints against the police which carries public confidence.
The job of the House today, just as it was the job of the Committee, must be to assess how far the Bill, as amended, and as it would be amended further if the new clauses were agreed to, goes towards the objective of ensuring confidence in the police by the public.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary objected to the suggestion that he was being complacent. I did not hear his speech, and I apologise to him for that. I am sure that he was not being complacent in it, but the Government are being complacent if they think that the Bill will satisfy the demand from which it originally stemmed.
The Bill is being put through the House because the Government know that the present arrangements are not good enough, because they know that public confidence in the police, which they and all of us desperately need, does not exist and will not exist without a radical change, The need is admitted.

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman is being a bit of a Rip Van Winkle when he says that there is no confidence in the police. There was a time, about six years ago, when there were grave grounds for concern about the Metropolitan Police, the major attention-gathering force in this country. But while the hon. Gentleman has apparently been asleep there has been a major clean-up by the present Commissioner, and many of the fears which inspired the Bill have diminished, to such an extent that we are all chasing after a white elephant.

Mr. Mikardo: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's gazing at my white hair and the other evidence of my advancing years and thinking of me as a Rip Van Winkle—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has still got his nappy on.

Mr. Mikardo: —but I have not lost my memory. The best answer I can give the hon. Gentleman is to extend to him, which I do cordially, an invitation to do

a little pub crawl with me one night round the East End of London. It is not absolutely identical with the Isle of Thanet, although many of my constituents spend a couple of weeks every year in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. But I invite him to have a pub crawl with me and to talk to the chaps in the pubs—I do not mean crooks but ordinary people. He would find out for himself that, with all the changes which he and I and the whole House and many other people know about, there is among many sectors of the population still a feeling which is expressed in their common phrase that "The police look after one another." That arises because there is no belief that complaints against the police are fairly investigated.
I believe, together with other hon. Members, that in the overwhelming majority of cases this charge is wrong. But where hon. Members opposite make a mistake in their attitude to the Bill—it was evident just now in the intervention of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet and in part of the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths)—is in thinking that it does not matter that some injustices are done because it happens in only a small minority of cases. The whole of the British legal system—one might go further and almost say the whole of the British way of life—is constructed round the concept of looking after the small minority, looking after the individual. It is better that 10 guilty men should go free than that one innocent man shall be condemned.
It is no good, therefore, saying that here we are looking after only 1 per cent. of the cases, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said. We have to remember that 1 per cent. of the cases accounts for a lot of people. One man rotting in gaol when he is innocent is one too many. If it were only one in the lifetime of every one of us—

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Member is always fair but I think he is departing from his usual standard of fairness. I assure him that no one on this side of the House, and no Member of my party in Committee, could possibly have given the impression that all is well in this regard, or that we can afford a single case of injustice if it can be avoided. Will not the hon. Gentleman concede that I at


least, representing senior police officers, have said on the Floor of the House and in Committee, not once but many times, that the police service as a whole warmly welcomes the idea of a truly independent element being introduced into the investigatory procedure?

Mr. Mikardo: I know that the hon. Gentleman has said this, and so, too, has the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who speaks with considerable authority about the views of another section of the police. So, too, have other hon. Members. But we have to concern ourselves with the way in which that general good will works in practice. It is no good being in favour of something in theory if we then propose practical measures which do not solve the problem.
It is our view that the Bill as drafted does not solve the problem. Indeed, this was the view of many hon. Members opposite in Committee. As everyone will recall, we were getting so near to each other that it was becoming a matter of both Back Benches against the Government. On both sides we were saying that the Bill was not good enough. I do not think that the changes resulting from our protests are sufficient to alter that view.
My remarks are based on an observation by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who said that the 1 per cent. of cases in which something would otherwise be wrong would be put right, but that this would be at the cost of a very much larger number of cases which would be phoney. I accept that. Nobody who has been a Member of the House and had correspondence about these matters could be in any doubt that there will be many false accusations. There have been many made in the past, and no doubt many more will be made. But I repeat that the whole of the British constitutional system is based on the protection of the individual in the odd case.
We have all seen cases going through the courts—there is one such lengthy cause cèlébre at the present time, although I had better not say which it is—which every hon. Member would regard as open and shut cases. We spend a huge amount of public money, the time of a learned judge and of learned counsel, and a huge amount of the time of police and

witnesses, because of the nature of our system of justice.
What we do, in effect, is to write insurance premiums. Just as hon. Members insure their houses against fire, when they know that there is not one chance in 10,000 of their houses being set on fire, in our system of justice we also pay an insurance premium. This involves a great waste of money. Just as people's houses do not often catch fire, I can see at once that there will be a great waste of effort in respect of the Bill, but the whole business is one of the protection of minorities.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Member's complaint ought not to lie against the Opposition. We have here a massive Bill which will cost a lot of money to implement. What the hon. Member is saying is that in the respect to which he is referring it will not work. I agree with him. That is why I do not like the Bill. But let him complain to the Government. He ought to address his complaint to them.

Mr. Mikardo: My complaint is against the opposition to the new clause which has come from some hon. Gentlemen opposite, and from some of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I complain equally about both groups. They are both targets of my criticism.
My second point is that some of the objections put forward to the new clause, including those put forward by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, are valid only on the assumption that the complaints board will consist of a lot of halfwits. Serious and experienced people will be appointed to the board. They will be people who know how many beans make five. They will be people with as much knowledge as hon. Members of the House of the way in which old lags behave. They will be people who, once they have been operating for a short time, will develop a sort of case law and an ability to discriminate.
I put it to the House that if the board consisted of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and a couple of other hon. Members opposite, together with myself and a couple of my mates, it would not take us long before we came to know the real from the phoney, or the prima facie real from the prima facie phoney. I


do not accept, therefore that there will be a great waste of time and effort over a lot of frivolous things.
Moreover, the establishment of what I would call "case practice"—it is a better term than "case law"—will soon be recognised. The people who complain frivolously—I have forgotten the name of the phoney colonel who was mentioned—will soon come to realise that it is no good going to the complaints board. They will know what sort of treatment to expect from it. The dangers in the clause seen by the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken are really far more apparent than real.
8.30 p.m.
The important thing to be remembered is that the Bill is in the interests of the police themselves. Those who spoke on behalf of the police in Committee said that so long as we were dealing with general theory, that was all very well, but in their resistance to our proposals they were not prepared to go the whole hog in making justice appear to be done.
I believe that the police need an effective Bill. The worst thing that can happen from the point of view of the police is that this Bill should be in an emasculated form. We all agreed that in Committee. After the board is set up, after a year there will be a public outcry and a demand for a proper system of investigation against the police. In other words, we shall go through all the traumas again—in the same way as we have been going through them for three years since my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) first started this hare involving the whole business of consulting police organisations and local authority bodies. No doubt the whole process will have to be gone through again if the demand is not satisfied by the Bill.
The Government are deluding themselves to a ridiculous extent if they believe that the existence of these provisions will bring an end to the public demand for a proper procedure for investigating complaints against the police. The Bill will not have that effect. We shall have to go through the whole process over again.
That is no good to this House. We must do our best with legislation to deal with a problem once and for all. Some-

times we make a mistake, but we always try to do our best. If these matters are not dealt with once and for all, that is no good for the police. They do not want to go through this trauma again. The Government, via these provisions or through some parliamentary means, must produce stronger legislation, and certainly more effective provisions than those contained in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Loveridge) quoted a case in which a man who otherwise would have suffered succeeded in avoiding that fate only because of the fact that he happened to have special knowledge of police procedure. In Committee I quoted a case of a man who would have got it "in the neck" if he had not known the procedure for taking civil action against the police. He took that action and won damages against police officers who had lied to the investigating officer, and who eventually were disciplined as a result of that lie. The case reached the courts and the courts overturned the earlier findings.
But why should we rely on the accident that the odd person here or there happens to know the procedure, or indeed happens to have a member of Parliament at whom he can nag so that justice is done and can be seen to be done? If the Government want to ensure that there is a good procedure for dealing with complaints, they will have to accept a proposal such as that which has been outlined—or, if that proposal is found to be deficient technically, they will need to work out something else.

Sir Bernard Braine: I did not intend to speak in this debate, and I shall detain the House for only a few moments.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is never dull but always interesting to hear, and there was a great deal of sense in his remarks. I must put on record that members of the police service, who in general feel that in the main the existing system of dealing with complaints is satisfactory and is conducted efficiently and fairly, welcome in principle the idea of an independent element when complaints against them are being investigated. They saw the sense of such a procedure.
For that reason I suspect that Conservatives were happy not to vote against the Bill on Second Reading. However,


there were a number of important points of principle, and even matters of details, which were apparent to us then. The whole police service was worried about certain aspects of the Bill, but on Second Reading the practice is that if one accepts the general principle—as we did—one expects other matters to be put right.
I have never known a Bill in Committee that was so fundamentally changed and altered as was this. This was evidence of its ill preparation, poor drafting and lack of effective consultation. There was never any question but that the police service as a whole accept the principle and want the Bill, though not necessarily in its present form. Members of the police service certainly do not accept the proposals advanced by some Labour Members, and indeed it is obvious that the Government are not prepared to accept them.
At a time when the police have never been so strained in their duties on behalf of the public and when they face rising trends in crime, with threats of terrorism,

Division No. 150.]
AYES
[8.40 p.m.


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Silverman, Julius


Corbett, Robin
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Noble, Mike
Whitehead, Philip


Evans, John (Newton)
Parry, Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)



Hayman, Mrs Helene
Richardson, Miss Jo
TELLERS FOR THE AYES'


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Mr. Frank Hooley and


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


Lamond, James
Sedgemore, Brian





NOES


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Bates, Alt
Hunter, Adam
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Bean, R. E.
Janner, Greville
Roper, John


Beith, A. J.
Jenkins, RI Hon Roy (Stechford)
Selby, Harry


Cant, R. B.
John, Brynmor
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Cartwright, John
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cohen, Stanley
McElhone, Frank
Small, William


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spriggs, Leslie


Davidson, Arthur
Maclennan, Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Millan, Bruce
Stoddart, David


Deakins, Eric
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dormand, J. D.
Moonman, Eric
Tinn, James


Dunnett, Jack
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tomlinson, John


Eadie, Alex
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Tomney, Frank


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Ogden, Eric
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Faulds, Andrew
O'Halloran, Michael
Weetch, Ken


Grant, John (Islington C)
Palmer, Arthur
Whitlock, William


Hardy, Peter
Pardoe, John
Wriggiesworth, Ian


Harper, Joseph
Peart, Rt Hon Fred



Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pendry, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Penhaligon, David
Mr. James Hamilton and


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Price, William (Rugby)
Mr. Ted Graham.

Question accordingly negatived.

it is imperative that there should be no misunderstanding about where the police stand in this respect. It is still our hope that the Government will listen to reason.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpem): Order. The hon. Gentleman said he was going to be brief.

Sir B. Braine: I merely wanted to say, in the light of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, that the House should not get the impression that there is any doubt about the attitude of the police to what is proposed in the Bill.
There is much in the Bill which is wrong and much needs to be done to improve it. I was about to say, when you rose so majestically, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the night is long and there may be many opportunities to demonstrate the truth of what I have said.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 28, Noes 68.

New Clause 4

DEFINITIONS

'"Non-Police Act force" means a body of constables maintained by an authority or company under a public or private Act of Parliament other than the Police Act 1964'.—[Mr. Teddy Taylor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient also to discuss New Clause 5—Disciplinary appeals relating to non-Police Act forces—
As from the passing of this Act, the right of appeal to the Secretary of State set out in section 37 of the Police Act 1964 shall apply in respect of non-Police Act forces.
We may also take the following amendments:

No. 34, in Clause 6, page 5, line 20, leave out from 'Board' to end of line 23 and insert
'shall, within twelve months of its establishment, make arrangements with those authorities, Ministries and companies set out in the schedule (Non-Police Act Authorities) which maintain police forces under statutory powers other than the Police Act 1964, for the discharge by the Board in relation to those police forces'.

No. 35, in page 5, line 25 leave out from 'Act' to end of line 27 and insert
'The Board may also, with the approval of the Secretary of State, make similar arrangements with other non-Police Act forces'.

No. 36, in page 5, line 28, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) If in the case of any body of constables, the Board have not within twelve months after the coming into force of this section made such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit and after consulting the Board and the authority in question, by order make such arrangements as aforesaid.
(3) The power to make orders under this section includes power to vary or revoke a previous order and shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and any statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'

No. (a) to Amendment No. 36, to leave out 'twelve' and insert 'six'.

No. (b) to Amendment No. 36, leave out 'may if he thinks fit and' and insert 'shall'.

No. 42 the new schedule—

NON-POLICE ACT AUTHORITIES

The Ministry of Defence;
British Rail;
British Transport Docks Board;
The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority;
The Royal Parks;
The Port of London Authority;
The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company; and
The Port of Bristol Authority'.

Mr. Taylor: After the long debate we had on New Clause 3 we now come to a frightening list of amendments and new clauses. I hope that it will not take too long to discuss them. It may be of some reassurance to those hon. Members who served on the Committee that someone who was not a member of the committee has read all the reports of their debates and was impressed by everything said.
The Bill is a preview of a Bill which will be introduced for Scotland in the next Session. I should declare other interests. I was the adviser to the Scottish Police Federation until the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) invited me to join his Government for a brief period in a junior capacity. When I did that I had to hand over to a Liberal Member who has looked after it very well since then. Possibly because of my good work with the federation, I have been appointed an adviser to the Port of London Police Federation.
The amendments and new clauses cover three specific points on which I hope the Government will be able to give me some assurance. The first point is covered by New Clause 4. The Minister will be aware that for some time those police forces which are set up under Private Acts of Parliament have been concerned about their status, particularly in view of comments made in public and, I am sorry to say, comments which were made during consideration of the Bill in Committee. Police forces such as the Port of London Police Federation were described sometimes as private forces, sometimes as semi-public forces, sometimes as special forces and sometimes as statutory forces. I was rather disappointed that in a letter which the Lord Harris sent to me following a letter I sent to the


Minister he referred to the Port of London Police Federation as "an employers' police force"
I think the Minister will accept that the definition of "an employers' police force" is probably the most objectionable of all. The report of the Royal Commission on the Police in 1962 recorded a number of judgments in which it was stated quite clearly as a statement of law the relationship of a constable to the watch committee or other appointing body. By these judgments, there can be no master-servant relationship involving a constable, and the Port of London Police Federation would resent being regarded in law as employees.
Therefore, particularly in view of the number of security organisations which have been growing up and which are different from a body of constables, it would be helpful to have a new definition of bodies like the Port of London Police. In New Clause 4, I suggest the definition of what I call a non-Police Act force. That would be defined as a body of constables maintained by an authority or company under a Private or Public Act of Parliament within the Police Act 1964. That would automatically exclude groups like Securicor, which are entirely different. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that she will take steps by means of these proposals or other means to provide a definition in law appropriate to a body like the Port of London Police and similar bodies.
New Clause 5 would take a further step. Even if the Minister accepted the new clauses and the amendments, that would not ensure that the police in non-Police Act forces would be in the same position as other policemen. Clause 37 of the Police Act says:
Subject to the provisions of this section, a member of a police authority who is dealt with for an offence against discipline may appeal to the Secretary of State.
That safeguard is greatly appreciated by police forces generally. But even if the amendments were accepted, a Port of London constable would not be in the same position when it came to an appeal as someone in the "Met". For him, the appeal would be to the Port of London Authority, whereas a constable in the "Met" could appeal to the Secretary of State. The amendments would give the same right of appeal.
The Minister has said that the Bill as drafted enables non-Police Act forces to be brought within the scope of the Bill, subject to their agreement. In Amendment No. 34 I propose that a number of such authorities should be brought in automatically. I set them out as a new schedule in Amendment No. 42.
The forces that I have suggested are those which come under the Ministry of Defence, British Rail, the British Transport Docks Board, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, the Royal Parks, the Port of London, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and the Port of Bristol Authority. They would be brought in within 12 months. That is not a comprehensive list, but under Amendment No. 35 I suggest that other such forces could be brought in under similar arrangements to those in Clause 6.
I believe that these arrangements are reasonable. It would be wrong to drive a further wedge betwen the police forces under local authorities and the "Met" and those bodies like the Port of London Police, when the latter carry out the normal functions and responsibilities of the former.
I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to reassure me on the points that I have raised. If she cannot accept the new clauses and amendments, I hope that she will say that steps will be taken to accept them in principle.

9 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: One of the most unanimous views reached by the Committee, or the view nearest to total unanimity, was that the very kind of force which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has described as non-Police Act forces, such as those maintained by the nationalised industries and some others, ought to be included in the same kind of complaints procedure as police forces maintained by local authorities, and by the Home Secretary in the case of the Metropolitan Police. There was wide acceptance of that view which in Committee led the Under-Secretary, quite rightly, to make a concession, the fulfilment of which we find in the Government's new clause.
The very strong feeling of the Committee that we should not allow one part of


the police service in. the United Kingdom to be left out of such a procedure is reflected in many of the forces concerned. A great many police federations representing such forces have indicated their wish that their members should be part of this scheme. Some forces have made that clear. Others were more reluctant to do so, but they have now seen the Committee's determination in this respect.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Cathcart has moved his new clause and drawn attention to bodies like the Port of London Authority. I was in correspondence with it during the Committee proceedings and the federation representing members of that force made it absolutely clear that its members wished to be brought within the ambit of the Bill and to be subject to the same restraints, discipline and complaints procedure as any other kind of police force. It is a commendable view which seems to be general in such forces.
Since the Committee stage I have had correspondence with other forces and I recently had a letter from the River Tees Police Association, the chairman of which says clearly:
We all wish you luck when you take up the subject of the Police Bill regarding our wish to be listed with other police forces for police discipline and complaints procedure.
It is already clear that there is a wish among these forces to be brought within the procedure.
In Committee the hon. Lady, responding to the feeling which had been expressed, said:
I now accept that it is the view of the Committee that they should be included in the Bill, and undertake to include some mandatory provisions to this effect."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 25th March 1976; c. 914.]
Those provisions are to be found in Government Amendment No. 36, one of the group we are now discussing.
Perhaps this is an unusual use of a mandatory provision. It has both strengths and weaknesses. Its strength is that it is wider than the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Cathcart, because it can refer to any body of constables and thus cover a whole range of forces of this kind, including some I have mentioned that were not included in the hon. Member's list,

although the British Airports Authority police were included in it.
The weakness of such a mandatory provision is that it is dependent on the decision of the Secretary of State after consulting the board. He has freedom to decide whether or not to impose the provisions of the Bill on a police force. The assumption is that within 12 months the force will be operating under the originally envisaged provisions of the Bill. If the force does not do so within that period, the Secretary of State may require it to do so. But discretion is left with him as to whether he does it at all or in any particular case. I must tell the hon. Lady—I hope that the Patronage Secretary's representative will not distract her as we are reaching such an important point—-that she needs to make the position a great deal clearer. I have no doubt that her intention is to give effect to what the Committee wished, but there would appear to be considerable doubt on the face of the Bill if we merely accept the Government amendment. That is why I have sought to impose upon the Secretary of State the duty of making these provisions.
There is really no advantage to the Government, to the board, to the police forces concerned or to the public in leaving any element of doubt about whether a force carrying out police duties under a properly constituted authority, with proper powers and in most cases wearing uniforms identical to those of regular police, is to come within the same complaints procedure. From everybody's point of view, it is desirable that the public should know that they can register complaints and have them investigated in the same way as they can act against any other police force.
We are bound to ask why the Government have not gone all the way and made clear in the Bill that all forces are to be included, how we can be sure that all such forces will be included, and whether the Secretary of State will use his powers in this way and to this extent, as was clearly the wish of the Committee.
There is a very unfortunate degree of dependence on the actions of a subsequent Secretary of State. Who are we to know who will be Secretary of State for the Home Department in years to come? There is the expiry of the 12


months during which the voluntary provision will apply before we even reach that stage, and then there will be a period during which any number of things could happen, and the same Government or a different Government could present us with a different Secretary of State. Any assurances that we are given must have that doubt hanging over them. However much we respect the good faith of the hon. Lady, the present provision is less than we had hoped for. It is for that reason that I ask the House to give some thought to an alternative amendment.

Mr. Aitken: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on the way in which they have put forward these very important amendments.
The nub of the question is one of status and terminology. It is most regrettable that Lord Harris, in his letter, should have used, the phrase "an employers' police force" Nothing is more alien to the whole spirit of the police and the forces that we are now discussing than that they should be thought to be in the position of employed men. In fact, a large number of legal judgments—particularly in the case of Fisher v. Oldham Corporation—have made it clear that there is no question of a master-and-servant relationship as far as a constable is concerned. I regret that a Minister of State, Home Office, should not have been knowledgable about that important point.
As regards the status of the special police forces, it is important that we get that clearly labelled under one generic head. The new clause, which suggests that they should be labelled as "Non-Police Act forces", provides a sensible and wise label. It would be most unfortunate if there were to be any question of discrimination. One has only to cast one's mind back to the outrageous Cannon Street railway bombing and to remember the magnificent co-operation between the British Transport Police and the Metropolitan Police to realise that those two forces shared the dangers, and shared the glory of the success afterwards, by co-operating together absolutely fully and closely.
The idea that one police force should be thought to be in one category and

another in a different category is absolutely wrong. I entirely support my lion. Friend's suggestion that it is essential that a constable of the Port of London Police, the railway police or any other of the police forces should be in the same position as a Metropolitan Police constable or any other constable, with the same right of appeal. All the non-Police Act forces must be brought under the Bill as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed accurately represented the strong feelings of the Committee that the provision concerning non-Police Act police forces should be mandatory. However. as we look at the Bill as it has emerged and the Government amendments, we see that it is not a mandatory provision but a discretionary provision. As the hon. Member rightly said, to some extent the future of these police forces and their status is at the mercy and the whim of a future Secretary of State for the Home Department. We really need assurances from the Under-Secretary this evening that in spirit at least it will be a mandatory provision.
Finally, I should like to press the important question of special constables. The hon. Lady will remember that throughout our debates it was constantly drawn to her attention that special constables, who are playing a more and more important rôle in co-operation and work with regular police forces, should be treated in exactly the same way as ordinary police officers in regard to complaints made against them. As my hon. Friends will know, I speak from personal experience, having been a special constable. It is perfectly possible for there to be an arrest with a special constable holding one arm of the villain and a regular police officer holding his other arm. In any subsequent complaint it would be absurd if the regular police officer could be complained against but the special constable could not be complained against.
We raised that very illustration and others like it so often in Committee that it seems regrettable that the hon. Lady has ignored our representations on this point and that there is no Government amendment to cover the situation of special constables. On these important amendments and new clauses, we still need the hon. Lady to clarify matters


considerably. I hope that she will now do so.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): During the debate on Clause 6 in Standing Committee I gave an undertaking that we should put down amendments designed to introduce some mandatory provisions into Clause 6. This we have now done, and our amendments will serve to achieve broadly the same purpose as this group of amendments put down by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). We agree that the larger police forces that we are discussing, including those listed in the proposed new schedule, should come within the new scheme introduced by the Bill—if not voluntarily, then compulsorily. I shall return to them in a moment.
I cannot agree with the proposal in the second of the new clauses in this group of proposals that the Home Secretary should in future act as the appellate authority for members of these police forces, maintained by authorities such as ports authorities. The appeals procedure set out in Section 37 and Schedule 5 of the Police Act 1964 is an integral part of the whole of the disciplinary arrangements for the regular police forces as set out in the Act or in regulations made under it. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to isolate this appeals procedure from the rest of the disciplinary provisions and graft it on to the various private discipline codes applying to employers' police forces for which the Home Secretary has no responsibility. The discipline code for these police forces, including any provision for appeals, must clearly remain a matter for the employing authority concerned.
I am aware that the general question of the status of these police forces is sometimes raised, but this is an issue far outside the scope of the present Bill, which is concerned only to provide an independent element in the existing complaints procedures. Nothing in the Bill affects the final responsibility of the authorities concerned for the internal management and discipline of their own body of constables. The amendment on appeals proposed by the hon. Member is therefore inappropriate, and I hope that he will

be willing to withdraw it as well as his other amendments whose general purpose, as I have indicated, is reflected in the Government's own amendments to clause 6, to which I now turn.
Clause 6 of the Bill provides that the board may enter into arrangements with authorities maintaining forces. There was very strong pressure in Committee for these arrangements to be mandatory, and I undertook to consult again the Departments concerned and to table some form of mandatory provision. Consultations have accordingly taken place with the Departments responsible for the main forces concerned. These forces are the British Transport Police, the Royal Parks Constabulary, the Ministry of Defence Police, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Police and the police employed by various ports authorities answerable to the Department of the Environment. It is now agreed that these forces should all come within the scope of the new scheme, and arrangements will be made accordingly.
As to the nature of the mandatory provision which we undertook to provide, hon. Members will see from the amendment that we have chosen to take default powers. Its effect is that if, within 12 months after the coming into force of Clause 6, voluntary arrangements, as envisaged in subsection (1), have not been made between the board and an employing authority, the Secretary of State will have power to make the arrangements by order after consulting the parties concerned.
The main reason for proceeding in this way is to leave the Secretary of State some discretion on how best to deal with more than a dozen very small local bodies of constables which still exist and over which the Home Office has no departmental responsibility. Perhaps I may give some examples. They include the Manchester Docks Police, the Port of Bristol Authority Police, the Dover Harbour Board Police, Milford Docks Company Police, Falmouth Docks and Engineering Company Police, Felixstowe Docks and Railway Company Police, park constables, canal constables, and university constables. We are not sure that we have complete information about all these small groups, and it will take some time to acquire it.
A force may have as few as four members. I agree that, so far as a local resident is concerned, the size of the particular force is irrelevant to his complaint, but it seems to be necessary for the Secretary of State to have some discretion to decide whether it is justifiable to incur the administrative expense and effort involved in setting up formal arrangements between the board and each of these small forces.
There was some query in Committee about the provision in Clause 6(2) for financial arrangements to be made—

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Beith: Will the hon. Lady be kind enough to recognise the position of the one force that I quoted—there are others—the River Tees Police force? It may well be that members of such forces are left in considerable uncertainty and that the governing authorities may be in doubt whether they wish to take part in the scheme. It would be of the greatest assistance—it may be very necessary—if the Home Office were to come quickly to a view as to whether it is likely to use the compulsory powers in those instances. If that does not happen, a great deal of doubt will hang over some fairly large forces for quite a long time.

Dr. Summerskill: Ideally we should like to proceed by voluntary methods. That is what we shall be doing to a large extent. This will involve consultation on a wide scale with different forces. Compulsory methods will be used only as a last resort.
There was concern about the provision in Clause 6(2) for financial arrangements to be made so that the board could charge the authorities concerned for its services in the handling of complaints. Although that provision seemed to us correct when the participation of the employers' forces in the scheme was to be voluntary, it seems inappropriate when Parliament has decided that participation should be compulsory. The amounts in some cases would have been small and might not have justified the cost of collection. Therefore, we have proposed to delete the original subsection (2).
It may be argued, and it has been, that the default provision in the amendment is not mandatory as it would operate only at the Secretary of State's discretion.

The Secretary of State would, however, be well aware—indeed, he is aware—that it was the wish of Parliament that the main forces we are talking about should be drawn within the new scheme. He has undertaken to act accordingly.
There are a number of important powers in the Police Act 1964 which in terms give the Secretary of State a discretion to act, but in practice they impose a duty upon him. It is unrealistic to think, for example, that the Secretary of State would not make disciplinary regulations for police forces under Section 33, or refuse to make an amalgamation order under Section 21 when requested by two police authorities to do so.
As I have explained, there are small bodies, often established under local legislation, where administrative difficulties would arise in bringing them within the proposed complaints procedure as well as disproportionate expense. I can assure the House that the Secretary of State will not exercise his discretion lightly He will consider the matter with the utmost care before reaching a decision on whether power to impose arrangements should be waived in certain cases.
I see that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is now in the Chamber. As I am on my feet, I shall take up the point which I presume he will make in the context of the amendment whose effect would be to allow only six months to the employing authorities instead of 12 to enter into voluntary agreement with the board for complaints against members of the private police forces concerned to be dealt with by the board. Thereafter, the Secretary of State, by virtue of the powers conferred by the new subsection (2), would be able to impose such arrangements by order.
The Government have every intention of bringing the main forces within the scope of the scheme set out in the Bill. Given that a number of employers chiefly concerned are either Government Departments or bodies answerable to a Government Department, there is no question but that the working out of the necessary arrangements will begin on a voluntary basis as soon as possible.
We expect this lead to be followed by authorities which may be less closely in touch with the Government, although it will take a little time to identify all the


police forces concerned and to inform them of Parliament's wishes.
That apart, the board will obviously take a little time to get run in on its main task. There is obviously room for debate on what in the circumstances is a reasonable length of time. We believe that 12 months rather than six months is a reasonable and practical period to allow for the voluntary arrangements to be worked out between the board and the authorities concerned. There is no question of our asking for a mandate for a leisurely pace. I assure the House that the necessary arrangements will be worked out as soon as possible.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I apologise to the Under-Secretary of State and to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) for having missed the open-parts of their speeches. However, I think that I can be extremely brief, because the hon. Lady has fulfilled in full the undertakings that she gave in Committee on this point.
I wish to comment briefly on three matters. First, if in the next six months to 12 months there were an occasion when two police officers—one of them working for the British Transport Police and the other for, say, the Leicestershire police—were supervising football hooligans on a train and a complaint were made against them of having assaulted those football hooligans and the regular Leicestershire police officer were to be put through the whole rigour of the Police Complaints Board and the British Transport policeman were not, the federated ranks of the police certainly would not put up with it. It cannot be right that when two officers, though perhaps working for somewhat different forces, are doing the same job and are subject to the same accusation by the same people, the constable of the regular police service should be put through one procedure and the British Transport policeman should be put through another. I beg the hon. Lady, who has given all the undertakings needed, to move expeditiously. I can promise her that, if disparate arrangements are made for policemen in British Transport, the docks, or the various bodies referred to by my hon. Friend, they will be seen by the police service to be unjust and unacceptable.
My suspicion—this is my second point—arises largely from the abrasive way in which the Atomic Energy Authority (Special Constables) Bill was brought forward. That was a major new departure, because it provided for a particular set of statutory policemen to be armed and, for the first time, to be given the powers and duties of hot pursuit on suspicion into the homes, if need be, of citizens. Yet the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Police did not even deign to consult the Police Federation before that legislation was brought before this House.
I think that was wholly wrong. Indeed, when the Minister who replied to that particular debate was charged by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and myself on this matter—I do not quote his words exactly, but I think I sum up his meaning accurately—he said that the Atomic Energy Authority was not keen on having its chaps subject to the same complaints procedure. Hon. Members on both sides put it to the Energy Minister that it was a question not of whether the authority was keen, but of what Parliament decided. The matter was not dealt with in that Bill. We were promised that it would be dealt with in this.
I think that the hon. Lady has fulfilled her undertaking. We are told that she will fulfil the undertaking by voluntary arrangements. From what I have been told by the relevant Ministers, there is nothing voluntary about it at all. The Atomic Energy Authority, for example, was not very keen. Parliament must tell the authority that it must come in, and that it should be included in the Bill now if the rest of the police service is to be included.
The hon. Lady tells us that the Home Office has to go through a year of negotiations and consultations to find out what police forces we have. This should have been done before this Bill was brought anywhere near Parliament. To be told at this stage, after years of consultation and preparation have gone into the Bill, that there are a number of police forces which the Home Office does not even know about, is an extraordinary way of proceeding. I hope the hon. Lady will tell her officials that this is one more example of their coming to


Parliament without having done their homework.
There can be no question of the various statutory police forces in the amendments being asked: they must be told. They should be included in the Bill in the same way as the regular police. The hon. Lady has said that if they do not come in voluntarily, they will be made to come in. That is fine. Unfortunately, as the amendment indicates, the Home Secretary can revoke that. He can make them come in, but by Order he can let them out as well. Parliament should decide that they must come in and stay in and that there should be no revocation.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: What does my hon. Friend mean by "regular police"? We have had references tonight to "statutory police", "private police", and now we have "regular" and "irregular police". Would it not solve the problem if the Government accepted by my splendid new clause?

Mr. Griffiths: I understand my hon. Friend's new clause and of course I support him. But I believe that the Government have achieved the main purpose in their amendment and I have already thanked them for it.
But I do not like this power of the Secretary of State—which means his officials—to revoke it if they wish. This is a matter for Parliament to decide, not for the police forces which think that they should be excluded from the Bill.
Once there have been consultations between the chairmen of the nationalised industries concerned and the Government, there should be no way in which these police forces can be let out. There should be no escape clause. Once in, always in—that is the best rule.

Sir Bernard Braine: The Minister told us that the Home Office was not really aware of all these forces. This is a most extraordinary revelation and shows a lack of grip and control of the situation. Until we know how many forces are involved, it is impossible to come to a decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is absolutely right to hammer home the fact that this is a question for Parliament, and it should not be left to the arbitrary decisions of Ministers who do not even know how many police forces exist.

Mr. Griffiths: I agree with my hon. Friend and I underline his view.
It is essential that the special constables be included in the Bill as well. This matter was referred to in Committee. In a society where violence is becoming normal, it will be more and more necessary to call upon special constables to supplement the activities of what I must call the regular police.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Rubbish. Withdraw that term.

Mr. Griffiths: All right—I will call them the police as most people understand them.
It will be inevitable in the future that more and more specials will be called in to supplement the police, whether it is in order to contain football hooliganism, supervise demonstrations, industrial and political, or help fight the rising tide of neighbourhood crime.
In those circumstances there are bound to be occasions when a police constable, accompanied by a special constable, will come into friction with members of the public. From time to time the public will complain about the way in which they have been treated by these officers. The complaint may centre on assault or irregularities of any kind.
We could not tolerate a situation in which the constable is put through the wringer of the complaints board while the special constable is not. It makes no sense to the public that there should be different arrangements for two officers. It is exceedingly damaging to the morale of one policeman for him to be subject to a set of procedures while the other is not. In any case, it is inequitable and Parliament should not allow it.
9.30 p.m.
I hope that the Under Secretary will not allow the debate to conclude without dealing with my point about specials. I realise that the point cannot be met in this Bill and I do not ask her to do that. But there must be some indication about how the specials should be treated when complaints are made.

Sir Bernard Braine: I intervene briefly to amplify the intervention I made a few moments ago. The House has been given the most extraordinary information, namely, that the Home Office does not


know the total number of non-Police Act forces in the country. These are forces as small as four men, but many substantially larger, whose members wear a uniform and who are charged with police duties, albeit of a limited kind within a limited area.
Any man who wears a uniform and appears to act as a policeman is judged by the general public to be a policeman. If he behaves in a way which gives rise to a complaint, the general public or the complainant will not distinguish between a non-Police Act policeman and a regular officer. Unwittingly we have uncovered a most unsatisfactory situation, and thank God we have.
The Minister must give the House an assurance that the Government take this matter most seriously and that no exceptions will be made. Anybody charged with police duties must be brought within the ambit of the Bill, and Parliament must insist upon that. I hope that we shall have that assurance.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I thank the Minister for what she said and for her amendment. I accept that the subject of the status of non-Police Act forces probably goes wider than the Bill. I hope that when the Bill is out of the way and the hon. Lady has completed the negotiations under Clause 6 she will be able to meet myself and representatives of the Port of London Police Federation to discuss this issue, which, I accept, probably does not come within the Bill.
I turn now to the disciplinary procedures. As long as there is no closer link between the Home Office and the non-Police Act forces, it will be difficult to have disciplinary proceedings for Police Act and non-Police Act forces which are comparable to each other or are directly related. Therefore, I accept the point made by the Under-Secretary. If she can assure me that she will arrange for the discussion I have sought, I shall be glad to seek to withdraw the motion after she has spoken.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I am increasingly concerned about this because recent experience has shown that some private police forces have shortcomings. Within recent memory there was the British Airports Authority Police.

but the manner in which it discharged its task, particularly at London Airport, did not meet with universal approbation, to such an extent that it was swept away and, after considerable debate in the House, was replaced by the regular police force.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Shame.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is entitled to think it a shame that the British Airports Authority Police was replaced by the regular police force, but I do not agree with him.
We do not know whether the list in Amendment No. 42 is exhaustive. Good heavens, I found that the Port of Bristol Authority and the Royal parks have their own police forces. I knew that the Royal parks had a sort of commissionaire with a uniform of his own, but I did not think that these people constituted a police force. It would be interesting to learn how different are their functions from those the people who wear yellow bands and control traffic. We should not leave this issue to a private conversation between my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart, the Minister and the Port of London Police Authority after the Bill has been enacted. That will be too late. The argument should be thrashed out thoroughly here and now.
The Under-Secretary has had plenty of time to send her minions to find out how many private police forces there are. They have had ample time to send out for that information. The hon. Lady has no excuse for not finding this out by now. If she has not done that, she is in no position to reply to the debate.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is wrong to talk of private police forces and the regular force? Is it not better to have bodies of sworn constables having a definition of their own? That is what I want to discuss with the Minister.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: No. A private police force is a police force which is not public in the normal sense of the word. By that, I mean that it is not publicly accountable. The Port of Bristol Authority is not publicly accountable in the same way as the regular police. The


regular police forces, except the Metropolitan Police, are accountable to their police authorities. The Metropolitan Police are accountable to the Home Secretary.
The Royal parks police force is in the nature of a private police force because the control over it and its chain of command are private and relate to the structure of the Royal parks rather than to rules laid down by the Police Acts.
Anyone who suggests that the British Rail police are publicly accountable has had no experience of British Rail. They are not publicly accountable, as the House knows to its cost. Its police force is accountable to British Rail, not to a Minister, a police authority or to any elected body. That is why it is properly called a private police force. Moreover, if my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart finds himself walking along a railway line he might be prosecuted for trespassing on private, not public, property. Therefore, it is legitimate to refer to the regular police forces as such and to describe as private police forces those whicsh are controlled by, and answerable only to, bodies which are not public bodies.

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend is making a powerful and convincing argument. He could add that the regular police forces are subject to inspection by Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary. I believe that the other forces to which he referred may invite Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary to inspect them, but it is only by invitation. There is an important distinction. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to press his argument.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I have every intention of doing so, because the existing complaints procedure in the regular police, which many people consider adequate for their needs, does not exist for the private police forces. How members of the public are protected against ill-discipline in private police forces, I do not know. What is more important is that members of the public do not know.
That is the first necessity, long before we apply our minds to any alterations in the complaints procedure against the regular police forces. After all, they are
under the control of elected bodies, which can inquire into alleged abuses. But what defence does any member of the public have against a private police force, except by grace of its employer? That is why it is so important, when we are purporting to legislate to have an acceptable complaints procedure, that we should not allow to be excluded from it areas in which a change is most urgently needed, if indeed a change is necessary.

Dr. Summerskill: I am listening carefully to the many arguments advanced on these six amendments and two new clauses.
I am sympathetic to the amendment of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 36. We believe that 12 months is a reasonable and practical period to allow for the voluntary arrangements to be worked out, but we want to get on with the matters as quickly as possible. and therefore we shall accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment to make the period six months, if that is the wish of the House.
I shall continue to keep in touch with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and receive written or oral representations from him on any matter that he would like to raise. One matter that he raised was the question of definition. The definition is in the Bill. We are talking about any authority
maintaining a body of constables, not being a police authority".
Some concern was expressed about my saying that we had no precise knowledge of the small forces of constables. I did not want to weary the House with all the small forces that we know about. Park constables can be appointed by local authorities to enforce provisions as to parks made under the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907. They have no jurisdiction in relation to the enforcement of the general law. Canal constables can be appointed by any two justices of the peace on the application of the proprietors of a canal or navigable river. University constables can he appointed by Oxford and Cambridge universities. Their number may fluctuate, with perhaps six in one term and two in another. This illustrates the variety which can exist under that definition.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Mr. Eldon Griffiths rose—

9.45 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: I am trying to deal with two new clauses and six amendments. I believe in equality of opportunity, and if I give way to one hon. Member, I shall have to give way to all of them. Perhaps I may be allowed to try to retain my sequence of thought.
Criticism was made of the Government amendment, which gives the power to the Secretary of State to revoke an order. This is a very important power under Clause 6. An order tailored to the disciplinary system of the constabulary in question would contain detailed provisions, and changes in the system might call for changes in the order. It would be quite unsatisfactory, in the event of the order having to be verbally amended, if the appropriate way to proceed were to revoke the existing order and make a new one. This is obviously the most practical way to proceed, and that is why that part of the Government amendment has been included.
I was questioned yet again about the special constable, whose importance I am the first to recognise. But, as most people here will know, the special constable came up again and again in the Committee stage of the Bill, and again and again I pointed out that the scope of the present Bill—I have said it again in my first speech on these amendments today—is concerned only to provide an independent element in the existing complaints procedures.
The Bill as it stands does not cover such complaints against special constables, because Section 49 of the 1964 Act, which is the starting point for the new machinery, does not apply to special constables. However, the chief constable of a force has discretion to dismiss a special constable under Section 16 of the Police Act 1964, or to reprimand him.
Obviously, we shall reinforce this point with special advice which will also make it clear to chief officers that where the investigation of a complaint against a special constable is relevant to a parallel complaint against a regular officer, the chief officer should make the relevant material available to the board to ensure that the board is in full possession of the facts. If a complaint against a special

constable is substantiated, it will still be open to the chief officers, as it is now, either to reprimand him or to dismiss him.
I have noted the points made about special constables, but I can only repeat that—as I think the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds appreciated—it is not possible to include special constables.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

USE OF POLICE FEDERATION FUNDS

'It is hereby declared that Police Federation funds may properly be used to prosecute cases of defamation against the police arising in the course of a complaint made against a police officer or officers'.—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]

Brought up, an read the First time.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move. That the clause be read a Second time.
When a Minister makes so graceful an acceptance as on the last group of proposals, the least one can do in response is to move the next matter briefly. I again wish to declare an interest, because this clause specifically concerns the financial affairs of the Police Federation, with which I have a connection.
The point of the clause is to ensure that the Secretary of State carries out his undertaking that the Police Federation will be allowed to use its voluntary funds for the purpose of taking action against those who by their complaints defame individual police officers. Let me say why the Police Federation feels the need for these new powers.
At the point when a complaint is made against a police officer, he immediately suffers damage. Whether that complaint be justified or not, he at least starts to suffer. He suffers because in many cases he is suspended from duty. If that happens, in many cases he loses his overtime. He can no longer go on courses which may lead to his promotion, and in many other ways he suffers in his profession simply from being accused. Equally, his wife and children come under the finger of suspicion in their


neighbourhood and suffer damage immediately from the point at which the accusation is made.
In nine cases out of ten the accusations against police officers are proved on the evidence to be malicious, vexatious, frivolous or unfounded. But in ten cases out of ten the police officer once he is accused suffers immediate damage. Therefore it must be right as a matter of justice that an officer who is shown to be wrongly accused but who is none the less damaged should be able to seek in the courts civil damages for any damage he can show he has suffered. That is the heart of the new clause.
I suspect that we shall be told that the clause as drafted is inadequate. But I shall be more than satisfied if the Minister says that before the Bill completes its final stages in Parliament—I am thinking particularly of the other place—draft regulations will be laid to amend the rules of the Police Federation to enable it to use voluntary funds for this purpose.
I put forward the clause to elicit from the Minister the assurance that the regulations will be suitably amended to embrace this purpose—and quickly.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: This is a necessary clause but it only scratches the surface of the problem. Actions for defamation are ruinously expensive. The clause would allow the Police Federation to use certain of its funds to maintain an action where it is believed that a police officer has been defamed maliciously. Nevertheless, the extent to which this clause could be used in practice would not be wide, because Police Federation funds are by no means unlimited and actions are unpredictable.
It would be a fair compromise if the Government, in introducing this much more draconian procedure, had accompanied it by a procedure whereby, if the Police Complaints Board found a complaint to be unfounded and made untruthfully and maliciously, there would then be an action for defamation brought at public expense.
I am disappointed that the Home Secretary did not think it right to achieve a balance of that kind by inserting a provision on these lines into the Bill. I point this out en passant unless it is thought that by accepting New Clause 8

police officers will be protected from malicious complaints. They will not. The new clause provides only a tiny and inadequate remedy because the federation's funds are quite inadequate.
I wish to see the new clause accepted, but I do not see why subscriptions from police officers should have to be used for this purpose. I believe that it is the duty of the State, which is setting up this extraordinarily elaborate and expensive complaints procedure, to finance actions for defamation when the procedure shows that a complaint has been made maliciously.
Hon. Members may not know, but at a conference this morning members of the Police Federation threw out a recommendation that they should support the Bill. If the Home Secretary had thought it right, even at that late hour, to put down a new clause providing that public funds should be used to prosecute actions for defamation where there were malicious complaints, the feeling that the new procedure is slanted against police officers, rather than being impartial between complainant and the police officer complained against, would be much less likely to be a representative feeling throughout the police service.

Mr. Mikardo: The suggestion of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) goes a hit too far. I can envisage all sorts of problems of definition, including, for example, definition of the word "malicious".
As I crossed swords in a friendly way with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) on an earlier clause, it is incumbent upon me to say that when this subject was considered in Committee some of my hon. Friends and I though that the hon. Member was on to a very fair point. I add my view to that of the hon. Member in expressing the hope that the Government will accept the new clause or make alternative arrangements to meet the point.

Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend gave an assurance in Committee that this matter would be dealt with by means of an amendment to the Police Federation Regulations 1969, after consultations with the federation. He also gave an undertaking that the necessary amending regulation would be laid before Parliament before the Police Bill came into force.
The Police Federation Regulations are made under Section 44 of the Police Act 1964. Regulation 19 concerns the use of federation funds and sets out the areas in which they may be used in the interests of individual officers belonging to the federation.
We propose to amend the Regulations to enable the federation to use its funds to defray legal expenses incurred by a member in bringing an action for libel or slander in respect of a complaint made against an officer under Section 49 of the Police Act 1964. I accordance with the Government's assurance given to the Committee, a draft amendment to these Regulations has already been sent to the federation. Consultations on it are in progress and will be completed as soon as possible.
There is no need for any legislation to enable the Regulations to be amended in the sense required. As I have explained, discussions are in train. There is no question of the undertaking to meet the federation's wishes on this point not being honoured.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State. She has met in full the undertaking given by the Secretary of State. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) for his support.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this days Sitting, the Police Bill and the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded wih, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Orders of the Day — POLICE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. William Whitelaw (Penrith and The Border): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Home Secretary what are the Government's intentions about the later proceedings on the Bill tonight? We did not oppose the business motion, and we wish to see progress made. We have only just finished the new clauses and are about to embark on the amendments. What are the Government's intentions?

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The Government's intentions are to get the Bill if they can reasonably do so. We have made fairly slow progress, but in the course of discussing the new clauses we have covered a wide field. I have the feeling that we might now begin, without hurrying and without lack of proper consideration, to move more quickly through the amendments. I noticed considerable restraint on the part of hon. Members on both sides of the House during the last two debates. I hope very much that we shall get the Bill tonight, but let us see how we get on for a short time.

Clause 1

THE POLICE COMPLAINTS BOARD

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Prime Minister'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are taking Government Amendments Nos. 3 and 43.

Mr. Jenkins: The amendment deals with the question of who should be the appointing authority for the Police Complaints Board. I understand that the Committee expressed an almost unanimous lack of confidence in myself as an appropriate appointing authority, but I take no exception to that. I regard the judgment as being institutional rather than personal. There was a feeling that the appointing authority should be a Minister who was somewhat more detached from the police, standing a little further back. At that stage we gave the undertaking that an amendment would be put down proposing an appointing authority other than the Secretary of State.
The Committee discussed the possibility of the Lord Chancellor being the appropriate appointing authority. We have considered that suggestion and I have gone so far as to discuss it with my noble Friend, but he is not enthusiastic about the proposal. On reflection, we do not think that it is appropriate. The Lord Chancellor is concerned only with judicial appointments or certain appointments calling for legal qualifications, and I do not think that this should be regarded as a judicial or legal appointment.
Therefore, we wish to propose to the House, and I hope that the House will accept, that the Prime Minister should be the appropriate authority. That meets in full the undertaking which we gave in Committee. Historically, the Prime Minister has even closer connections with the police than I have. But the objection is ex officio rather than personal, and I do not think that that point is valid even if anyone wishes to press it.
Amendment No. 1 gives the Prime Minister responsibility for appointing members of the board. Amendment No.

3 gives the Prime Minister power to appoint the chairman and the deputy-chairman. Amendment No. 43 gives the Prime Minister power to dismiss board members in the narrow circumstances described in paragraph 3(4) of the Schedule.
The other matter which possibly arises under these amendments is the question of consultations about the appointments. I do not think that these consultations should be statutory. If they are statutory we get near to a right of veto, which the House would not wish to advocate and which would not be right for an independent board. I assure the House that the Government's intention is to have full consultations with the bodies concerned. We hope that we shall establish a board which will command the confidence of those who have to work closely with it on the professional side of the police service.

Sir Bernard Braine: Despite the self-effacing and pleasant manner in which the right hon. Gentleman moved the amendment, I am not at all sure that the House should accept it. I rise to express disappointment at the Government's failure to take the opportunity to demonstrate their concern to secure an utterly independent element in the procedure for investigating complaints. That is surely without precedent in a major Bill such as this. It was agreed by all sides that, whoever appoints the new board, it certainly should not be the Minister designated in the Bill.
Indeed, in keeping with the generally poor presentation of the Bill and the lack of effective consultation in Committee, we did not know who would be the appointing Minister. All we were agreed upon was that the Home Secretary should not have these powers. We are setting up entirely new machinery for investigating complaints against the police, and we are agreed that it should be as independent as we can possibly make it. On that there is no division in the House. But how does one ensure full public confidence in the independence of that machinery and at the same time—we agreed in Committee that this was important—ensure full police confidence that it will be conducted fairly? For these are the key requirements.
One would have thought that the Government, before the Bill was drafted. before it was given a Second Reading, at least before it went into Committee and certainly before it was considered tonight, would have realised how undesirable it would be to appoint a political Minister—the Home Secretary—who is the police authority for the largest police force in the country, comprising one-fifth of the police service. He is also the final appeal authority for a disciplinary offence in the Metropolitan Police.
All this is, of course, no reflection upon the person of the right hon. Gentleman, the present holder of the office. I refer solely to the responsibilities he carries. Moreover, there was no provision in the Bill, as far as I am aware, for him to consult the local authority associations, the police authorities or the police staff associations about whom he appoints. Nor is there such a provision now that it is decided that the appointing officer shall be no less a person than the Prime Minister. It was only in Committee that we secured the promise that the Home Secretary would not appoint to the board any ex-police officers. Presumably this now extends to the Prime Minister.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikado) may recall that in Committee I pointed out that the police service was insisting that not only should no ex-police officers be appointed to the board but that no member of the staff of the board should be an ex-police officer. That in itself is an indication of the desire of the police service that the new machinery should be truly independent from the very beginning. Even now, there is no guarantee of that. Yet while the Home Secretary has conceded the one—I must not trespass on later amendments—he has not conceded the other.
Many of us thought in Committee that there was a simple way out of the difficulty of demonstrating that the board should be as free from political influence as possible. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, in a notable speech early today, implied correctly that what was important was not the facts themselves but what people believed the

facts to be, and that justice not only had to be done but should be seen to be done. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) wanted an ombudsman as the appointing officer. That was an attractive idea which appealed to many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
But if the appointing officer has to be a Minister—I do not quarrel with that, nor does the organisation that I represent—it is the Lord Chancellor who is uniquely fitted for the task. He holds together all the diverse but essential elements of the constitution—the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary. In that capacity, he has to maintain the most careful balance. Like all his predecessors in that high office in modern times, the present holder does this with great flair and distinction, as not only the lawyers in this House will recognise.
It is not too much to claim that the Lord Chancellor's office is one of the bastions of liberty, as is the principle of locally-constituted police forces, run at arm's length from the Home Secretary, who must never be allowed to become a Minister of the Interior controlling a national police force. It is the Lord Chancellor who appoints the judges, the magistrates and many tribunals. It is not the Home Secretary and it is most certainly not the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister, indeed, is the most political figure we can envisage. He is a political animal par excellence. I am not talking about the present incumbent any more than I am talking about his predecessor. A politician gets to the top of the greasy pole only by being the most political of political animals.
In one sense the Prime Minister is an improvement on the Home Secretary because of the latter's police responsibilities. To that extent the Prime Minister is a tiny bit more detached, to use the Home Secretary's word, than the Home Secretary himself. But how can we be sure that he or a future Prime Minister will not behave in a political way in appointing the members of the board? I ask that question for one simple reason. Where is the provision in the Bill to impose upon the Prime Minister the duty of consulting the local authorities, which, outside the Metropolitan Police area are the police authorities? Where is the


safeguard against the appointment of persons chosen because they are politically acceptable to the Government of the day?
One may say that these dangers are very remote, but, as someone much wiser than I said years ago:
Dangers by being despised grow great.
We must ensure, therefore, that, in this field above all, there are proper safeguards from the word "go". If the appointing Minister has to be the Prime Minister, we want the safeguards I have mentioned written into the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman is the most reasonable of men. He has been a humane and efficient Home Secretary and we greatly respect him. Therefore, he must not take amiss anything I am saying in this regard. But I will not take from him, and I suggest that the House should not take from him, the assurance that "Of course, we will take soundings. Of course, there will be verbal consultations and so on." Let me say here and now, on this as on other aspects of the Bill, that the police organisation as a whole—my hon. Friends who represent other parts of the police service can correct me if I am wrong—wants adequate safeguards written into the Bill. It is in the interest of the public, too, that there should be adequate safeguards in the Bill and proper parliamentary control.
I conclude, therefore, by asking for the assurance that it is the intention of the Government to consult the police staff associations and local authority associations about these appointments. Would it not be better, even at this eleventh hour, to give the House an undertaking that in another place an appropriate amendment will be put down to ensure that statutory provision for these consultations will be made?

10.15 p.m.

Mr Maxwell-Hyslop: The objection to having the Prime Minister substituted for the Secretary of State is very similar to the objection to having the Secretary of State himself. Who are the officials who will advise the Prime Minister? They will be the same Home Office officials as advise the Home Secretary, so it is a change in form rather than in reality. That is my real objection. They will be the same officials who advise on the

appointment of Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. It is an in-house job, and it is still an in-house job if it is done by the Prime Minister because he will be advised by exactly the same officials.
We can only break the circle of this being an in-house job by having someone who is used to taking the canon of impartiality in his selection, and that is primarily the Lord Chancellor. He does not just appoint judges from the legal profession. He is also the Minister who appoints magistrates and laymen throughout the country. He is clearly the Officer of State who should appoint the members of a Police Complaints Board. I very much hope that the Government and the Secretary of State, who is visiting the House at the moment, will even at this late hour see fit to withdraw this amendment and give an undertaking that in another place an amendment will be used to substitute the Lord Chancellor for the Home Secretary. That is the appropriate course of action to be taken.
What on earth is gained substituting the Prime Minister for the Home Secretary when the same advisers will advise, those not noted for selection procedures based largely on the concept of impartiality and acceptability. That is not their primary function in the Home Office, but it is the primary function in the Lord Chancellor's department, and that is how we are likely to get acceptability both by the public and by the police rather than by having this in the political gift of Ministers of the Crown. I believe it is agreed on all sides that the Lord Chancellor acknowledges a duty to Parliament which is different in nature from the duty of a political Minister, be he the Secretary of State for the Home Department or the First Lord of the Treasury.
Both the Home Secretary and the First Lord of the Treasury are highly political animals. Were they not, they would not get there. It is not primarily the characteristic of being a highly political animal that elevates a man, or, possibly at some date, a woman, to the office of Lord Chancellor. It is qualities other than those of a conspicuously successful politician.
The present First Lord of the Treasury, who is also Prime Minister by reason of


that fact, has a background which, apart from anything else, would disqualify him from making such an appointment. I should have thought that one would not expect an ex-employee of the Police Federation to be the person who appoints the Police Complaints Board, yet that is what the Government are proposing. So it is unsuitable ad hominem, quite apart from being unsuitable in principle.
I hope very much, therefore, that the Secretary of State, instead of leaving the House with the dilemma of whether it should accept an amendment that it does not want because it does not achieve what it does want, or else reject it because it does not want that either, will agree to withdraw the amendment and give an undertaking to substitute in another place an amendment which will have the effect of the Lord Chancellor making these appointments rather than the unsuitable office of Secretary of State for the Home Department or the unsuitable office of First Lord of the Treasury.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: I find myself much in agreement with those of my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate, particularly following the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). It is no disrespect to the present Prime Minister to remind the House that he was an adviser to the Police Federation. Some other Prime Minister some day may also have been an adviser to the Police Federation. Even worse, it is possible that one day we may have as Prime Minister a man who has been a police officer. I say "even worse", but I think that that would be a very good background for a Prime Minister—and perhaps even better for a Chief Whip. However, certainly it would be no disqualification from being Prime Minister to have served in the police force.
How bizarre it would be, however, if an ex-policeman were appointing the members of this board, and not only appointing members as an ex-policeman but appointing them to a board of which one of the disqualifications for membership was that of being an ex-policeman. That is a bizarre situation that could arise. It is very unlikely to arise if we decide to accept the good sense in the speeches of my hon. Friends and to make

a Law Officer, and particularly the Lord Chancellor, the responsible person for appointments to the board.
After all, it is extremely unlikely—though not, I suppose, impossible—that among all the qualifications and experience of a Lord Chancellor would be that he had been either a policeman or an adviser to the Police Federation. Therefore, we would be treading on much safer ground. The Lord Chancellor also has another great advantage in these matters. He is not a Member of this House. It is important for us to remember that.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, sometimes this House becomes mildly excitable about various things. It becomes mildly excitable on what one would call a short-term basis. The excitement fades away quite quickly. However, in the moment of excitement great harm can be done. I recollect a Minister standing at the Dispatch Box and referring to a High Court judge as a trigger-happy judicial fool. That is not the sort of thing one would expect to happen in the other place. It may be that it is a good thing for these things to be said. It may be that it is a bad thing. That is not a matter that we are discussing, in general terms, this evening. But it underlines what I say. This House is excitable. Sometimes it finds itself trapped into making quick comments of a most injudicious nature about judicial matters. It would be tragic if one day in this House a Prime Minister or even a Leader of the Opposition were trapped by party passions into making comments about the appointment of members to this board which everyone regretted subsequently, as I believe everyone regretted subsequently the remarks which I quoted just now.
It is unlikely that that would happen at the other end of the corridor. That is one of the advantages of the other place. Its Members are generally—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Asleep.

Mr. Tebbit: Not asleep. Many of them, having been here and seen this place at its worst, are perhaps a little more placid when they are reincarnated at the other end of the corridor. So I think that it would be a great advantage if these appointments were made and were likely to be questioned at some


time at the other end of the corridor, rather than here.
I also agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton when he said that, if the Prime Minister made these appointments it would be essentially an in-house job. Not only would it be a matter of the same advisers advising, though almost inevitably that would be the case; I think that it is highly likely that some Prime Minister at some time might observe casually to his Home Secretary that he had this little problem of appointments and that the Home Secretary had a lot of experience and knew many of the people involved. In that way, we would be back to the situation, in essence, which the Committee agreed was undesirable. It may be that I am naive about these matters, but I do not believe that it is likely that a Prime Minister would put this point to a Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor, because he is a different animal from those of us who are currently in this House, and certainly a different animal from the sort of man who becomes Prime Minister, would not lightly accept advice from a Prime Minister or even seek it. I think that the House would be wise to think again about this and that the Home Secretary would be wise to reconsider whether he has it right.
I was not a member of the Standing Committee. Perhaps it is remiss of me and of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton that we did not put down an amendment to make it possible for the House to vote on this issue in a way which would make sense as opposed to a way which would make nonsense by going back to another position which everyone agreed was wrong. The only person who can solve the dilemma is the Secretary of State. He can do it by saying that he will think again and, in their Lordships' calm House—those tranquil waters so rarely disturbed by passion—come back with a better solution than this amendment.

Mr. Sims: This issue is central to the whole Bill. The object of the exercise in which we are engaged is to introduce an independent element into the investigation of complaints against the police. For that reason, the independent aspect is extremely important. It is essential that this board is independent and that it is seen to be independent, and its inde-

pendence will be judged on the basis of the people appointed to it and those who make the appointments.
The Government accepted the objections raised in Committee to the proposal that the Secretary of State should make the appointments. I hasten to assure the right hon. Gentleman that, of course, there were no personal grounds for those objections.
The objections were three-fold: first, that the Secretary of State has general responsibility for the police; secondly, that he is the police authority for the Metropolitan Police; and, thirdly, that he is a political figure. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) pointed out, the Prime Minister also is very much a political figure. He is a party politician. None of us would doubt his impartiality in making these appointments, be he the present incumbent or any other. But it is not the view which we in this House hold that matters. What is important is that people outside this House should believe that these appointments are being made impartially. We have to convince the Press, the legal profession, the police, and not least the public at large, especially those members of the public who are likely to make the complaints, that this is an independent board that is independently appointed.
10.30 p.m.
It is fair to say that the present incumbent of the office of Prime Minister is a man not without a background of some political controversy. In the course of our discussions in Committee when we debated whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department should make these appointments, I offered the Committee the sobering prospect that the present Leader of the House might become Home Secretary and might make these appointments. After raising that matter we were faced with the prospect of the same gentleman becoming Prime Minister. I am sure that none of us in the House would doubt that if he did so he would make them impartially, but can we be sure that the country would consider the right hon. Gentleman to be independent of any party bias?
I feel that this is a strong objection. Although I accept that the right hon. Gentleman has moved some way towards meeting the arguments that came forward


in Committee, I feel that a number of objections can be laid against the proposal that the Prime Minister should make the appointments. The point has already been made by my hon. Friends that the present incumbent of the office has held a position as adviser for the Police Federation. Then there is the question of whether the Prime Minister would have his own Department and his own staff to advise him, or whether he would not be making Home Office recommendations while wearing another hat.
On all the grounds that I have put forward I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this matter and give further thought to the suggestion that the Lord Chancellor would be a far more suitable person to make these appointments. He is independent. He is considered throughout the country to be independent and above the party battle. He is the head of the judiciary, and the fact that he appoints magistrates and makes appointments to judicial positions justifies his making these appointments. He is especially well equipped to do so with his experience and the staff that surrounds him.
A formidable case has been put forward by my hon. Friends, and I hope that the Home Secretary will be prepared to give the matter further consideration. Perhaps he will give an undertaking that the general feeling that has come forward this evening will be met at a later stage in the Bill's passage.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have listened to the debate with interest, but I hope that the House will be prepared to accept the amendments, which are the only ones before it. If it does not do so, it is possible that the Lord Chancellor may show his independence by not moving an amendment in the other place—I am sure that he would be very reluctant not to do so—and we should then be back with the Home Secretary.
I found the contrast between the complete political detachment and judicial nature of noble lords and Lord Chancellors in another place and politicians in this place to be a little idealised in the presentation of some of the remarks that have been made in the debate. Two of the past six Lord Chancellors have been past Home Secretaries, and most of the others

have played a considerable part in the House, and often a partisan role. I should not like to lay any excessive claim to calmness and a judicial approach, but I am prepared to say that I am at least as calm as one of the past two Lord Chancellors.
The Prime Minister, whoever he may be, is used to making appointments which are not notably political. The Prime Minister, for example, appoints all the bishops and all the governors of the BBC. There is a whole range of appointments of that kind where the degree of impartiality is not queried.
I shall take note of the arguments that have been put forward. I point out that there was no unanimity in favour of the Lord Chancellor in Committee. I hope that the House will accept the amendments as going a reasonable distance to meet the view that has been put forward.

Sir Bernard Braine: Will the right hon. Geneleman deal with my point about the necessity for statutory consultation?

Mr. Jenkins: I give an undertaking that there will be full consultation. I shall be very disappointed if we do not produce a board which is manifestly independent and commands confidence. I cannot draw a line between statutory consultation and something very near a right of veto. That would go contrary to the other arguments about the totally independent nature of the board which the hon. Gentleman and others put forward so eloquently.

Mr. Whitelaw: Obviously, as the Secretary of State said, the House is in a difficulty. If we were to reject the amendment, we should be back with the Home Secretary again. Personally, I should not object to that. Clearly, that is not the wish of the House, nor of the Committee, as I understand it. As there is no proposal before the House relating to the Lord Chancellor, I must advise my hon. Friends that to vote against the Prime Minister means that we go back to the Home Secretary. If that is what some of my hon. Friends want, they have not expressed it in what they said. On the whole, I think that we must look at this matter on that basis. Before the matter goes to another place, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether the Prime Minister, as opposed


to the Lord Chancellor, is the right person.
The Home Secretary said that some Lords Chancellors were calmer than others and that others were more political. Who could deny that? We have all had experience of Lords Chancellors of one kind or another. Some of them have been highly political and, in my experience, some have not been the calmest. I think that we must all accept that. Nevertheless, something attaches to the Lord Chancellor's position which is, in substance, rather different from the Prime Minister's position. The Prime Minister inevitably appoints many different people to many different positions. But he is the most highly political figure in the country, because he has been determined to get to, and has got to, that position.
The Lord Chancellor—however political Lords Chancellors may have been in the past and whatever their actions—is regarded as being above politics. But that is not strictly accurate. The Lord Chancellor is a member of the Cabinet and, as such, takes an active part in politics. The suggestion that he is as far removed from politics as some have tried to make out could not, I think, be substantiated, and I do not make that point. On the other hand, he is the head of the judiciary. That makes him not only important, but different from anyone else. Indeed, as he appoints magistrates, and so on, there is a strong argument for considering the Lord Chancellor.
I understand all that the right hon. Gentleman said about the case for the Prime Minister, but I think that there is a stronger case in the long run for the Lord Chancellor on the simple basis that he is not in the normal run of politics and therefore does not have to express political views.
I should like to follow what the Home Secretary said about certain Lords Chancellors in the past. Those who attain the position of Lord Chancellor—those who have been the most political and those who were not the calmest of people—seem somehow to withdraw from the political battle in a way which surprises us. That they have done that makes the point that perhaps the Lord Chancellor is rather different and can be regarded by the general public as different in kind

from the Prime Minister, who is inevitably a very political figure.

Mr. Mikardo: The right hon. Gentleman and others have spoken of the duty of the Lord Chancellor to appoint lay magistrates. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that a very large proportion of these magistrates are chosen on a political basis.

Mr. Whitelaw: There are arguments about that, and I do not wish to pursue them with the hon. Gentleman now. If I do, I shall be accused of deliberately seeking to prolong discussions on the Bill, which is the last thing I want to do.

Sir Bernard Braine: But the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has raised a very important point. Public and political opinion generally accepts that it is desirable that people of differing political views and allegiances should be appointed to the Bench. The Lord Chancellor sees that a proper balance is kept. This is a perfect example of his impartiality.

Mr. Whitelaw: Obviously, my hon. Friend has answered the point. Far be it from me to add anything to what he has said.
Clearly, the House is in the position that if it tries to reject the amendment, it will go back on what the Committee wanted. The Home Secretary has sought to meet what was said in Committee by proposing the Prime Minister, and it would be churlish of us to reject this. But, in view of the arguments which have been put forward, is it wise that the Prime Minister should be the person responsible? Perhaps the Home Secretary would consider, before the Bill finishes in another place, that perhaps the Lord Chancellor will be the wisest person to have in the end. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor will not like it. Nevertheless there are powerful arguments which suggest that he might be a better person than the Prime Minister. I hope this will be considered very carefully.

Mr. Tebbit: I do not want to overstate the fact that ermine may have the same effect as librium, but if we were to go back to the Home Secretary by voting on this tonight, there might be some noble Lord lively enough to move amendments in another place to put in the Lord Chancellor's name. This would have the


advantage that when the Bill came back to this place, we would have a second chance—after considerable thought—to leave in the Lord Chancellor, or to go back to the Home Secretary's recommendation of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am getting a little confused as to where I am. On the whole, I think that it would be unwise to oppose the amendment at this stage, because, after all, the Home Secretary has sought to meet the views expressed in committee. The House should let this amendment pass, but at the same time should say that when the Bill is passing through another place, the Home Secretary should consider whether it would be right to have second thoughts, and perhaps decide on the Lord Chancellor in the end.

Amendment agreed to.

10.45 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 10, at end insert:
'(2) The members of the Board shall not include any person who is or has been a constable in any part of the United Kingdom.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With it we may also take Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, at end insert 'or colonies'.

Dr. Summerskill: During the debate on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend made it clear that serving police officers would not be appointed to the Police Complaints Board. A number of hon. Members in Standing Committee were of the opinion, however, that former service as a police officer should also be a bar to appointment, and this is a view we undertook to consider. We had originally thought that it might be unfortunate if an otherwise suitable candidate were barred from appointment merely because at some time in the past he had served as a police officer, perhaps only for a very short time. But we have established that the Police Federation in particular is strongly of the Committee's general opinion, and this amendment accordingly provides that no serving or former member of a police force in the United Kingdom may be a member of the board.
The exclusion is comprehensive. It covers not only a member of a police

force within the meaning of the Police Act 1964 or a special constable appointed under that Act but also a regular constable and a special constable within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and a member of a private constabulary such as the transport police.

Mr. Alison: Will the Under-Secretary comment on Amendment (a) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths)? Is there any reason why the proviso should not apply to the United Kingdom and Colonies? As an experienced police representative, he has good reason for proposing the amendment. There was an unfortunate case recently of a police officer of one of the colonies having proved unsatisfactory in terms of personal integrity. I will not mention any names. The House will know about this sad colonial case.

Dr. Summerskill: There is a good reason why we cannot accept Amendment (a). The debate in Standing Committee touched on service in police forces abroad, for example, in the Hong Kong police, but it scarcely seemed necessary to make any special provision in this respect. It is obvious that it is service in a United Kingdom police force which would most likely call into question the impartiality of a candidate for membership of the board, and in the event of a candidate presenting himself who had police service abroad the Prime Minister would undoubtedly have regard to the general principle contained in the Government amendment No. 2. It has to be borne in mind, moreover, that service in a police force abroad would differ considerably in conditions and circumstances from police service at home. In addition, the chances are that United Kingdom citizens who had served in police forces abroad would, at some time or another, also have served in a United Kingdom force, and so would fall in any case under the ban imposed by this amendment.
An additional objection to the amendment is that, whatever sympathy we may have with its principle, we have to ask whether it goes far enough. Why ban a former colonial police officer but not one who served in a dominion force? We must also consider police service in


independent countries which were formerly British territories, or police service in any foreign country. So, in considering the problem we decided that the line had to be drawn somewhere and that for all practical purposes the line drawn in the Government amendment is the right one. Cases of candidates with police service elsewhere are likely to be rare in practice and could be suitably dealt with if the need arose.

Mr. Beith: Having tabled in Committee an amendment almost identical to that which has now been moved, I thank the Under-Secretary for acceding to the view which was put to her both inside and outside the Committee. It is sometimes difficult for people outside the police service to recognise that there is deep feeling in the police forces that it would be unsatisfactory to have ex-policemen exercising this role. By agreeing to their request she is strengthening the independence of the board in the eyes of the public.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 3 in page 1, line 13, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Prime Minister'.—[Dr. Summer-skill.]

Mr. Alison: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 2, at end insert—
'(5) Salaries of the Board to be determined by the Secretary of State under paragraph 4 of the Schedule shall in no case exceed £2,400 per annum in respect of part-time members, £4,000 per annum in respect of full time members and in the case of the Chairman of the Board no more than £7,500 per annum'.
My hon. Friends and I regard this amendment as one of substance and importance. The terminology of it need not mislead hon. Members. We seek to limit the possible range of salaries of certain of the officers of the board in future, but it is really a device to secure a reasonably comprehensive debate on the cost of the board. It is important to debate that because at this time, as at no other, we need to consider value for money. The Bill as it stands does not provide good value for money.
I must remind the House of how extraordinarily ineffective the new machinery will be, and I shall illustrate that by using some key statistics relating to what will be involved in the new complaints machinery.
I take the complaints in the Metropolitan Police area as the basis of my argument because those complaints represent one-third of the total work load of all complaints. To see the national picture one simply needs to gross up my figures by about three.
In the Metropolitan area in 1975 there were about 4,300 finalised complaints. Taking that as the overall figure, I shall tell the House what happened to those cases, how they were disposed of and what the Police Complaints Board's work load will be. About 1,700 of those 4,300 cases were referred, as possible criminal cases, to the Director of Public Prosecutions. That means that virtually all were ruled out of the ambit of the complaints board. They were thrown out of the window. That leaves about 2,500 prima facie non-criminal cases which might be admissible as cases to be referred to the complaints board. Of that number, only 55—a tiny fraction—resulted in disciplinary charges against an officer by the chief officer.
Why were there so few? The reason is simple. They involved Mrs. Jones complaining that P.C. Bloggins had been rude to her. There was no outside witness, and no disciplinary charge could be preferred. That type of case will make up the vast bulk of the work load of the complaints board.
If the board asks why disciplinary proceedings were not taken, the police will explain that there was no evidence, that it was a knock-for-knock account. In only a few cases will the board say that disciplinary charges should have been preferred. In most cases it will come to the same conclusion as the police.
That is the work load with which our brave new board will have to contend. It will involve a vast churning bureaucracy, a huge amount of extra work and the setting up of a new piece of Civil Service manpower.
We were told when the Bill was published at the beginning of the year that the board would cost £300,000 a year and involve the appointment of one assistant secretary, two legal assistants, two principals and 21 other staff. That was before a year's inflation of 20 per cent, and before the new ceiling on wages and salaries of £4 a week and 2½ per cent. Both the Police Federation


and the Association of County Councils were convinced that £300,000 was ludicrously wide of the mark anyway, and that the cost would be at least £1 million—for the transmission of 2,500 cases by post from the Metropolitan Police alone. We gross up that figure by three to obtain the national picture. There will be a flow of cases backwards and forwards just to rubber-stamp a decision that there is no basis for preferring a charge.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr Mikardo) made a fair point in Committee when he said that having one man languishing in prison was worse than having 10 guilty men on the loose. I entirely agree. One innocent man in prison is unacceptable and inexcusable in any society. One can say that to avoid that hazard it is worth spending some money. But there is a corollary on the cost side which applies with equal validity. We have moved into a new era in public expenditure. I shall quote the definitive references in the Public Expenditure White Paper. Paragraph 16 of Part 1 says that the public expenditure programmes for 1977–78 onwards originally forecast in an earlier White Paper
have been substantially revised. In this the Government's main aim has been:
—first to stabilise the total level of spending on the expenditure programmes for the time being, so that enough resources are available for increased exports and investment;
—second, to give priority to expenditure for improving industrial productivity and efficiency, and hence to increase the rate of growth of resources.
I go on to quote what I consider to be a key passage in paragraph 17:
This means that in all programmes, including the social programmes, very strict tests of priority have had to be applied. The Government's purpose in making these hard decisions was to ensure that the increase in national output in the next three or four years is not appropriated for use in the public sector, but instead is available to put the balance of payments right, to provide for increased productive investment, and to allow a modest rate of increase in private consumption.
11.0 p.m.
It is the aim of the public expenditure programme to hold the programme steady and then to increase the outlay on productive investment. It is that which it will promote. The effect of this in public expenditure is stark. If one looks at the Table 1.2 in the White Paper one finds

that between the current financial year, 1976–77, which covers the first year of the Police Complaints Board operation, through, as the Americans say, 1979–80, there is forecast a cut of £4 million in overseas aid, a cut of £114 million in nationalised industries capital expenditure, a cut of £225 million in roads and transport, a cut of £200 million in housing, a cut of £70 million in other environmental services, as they are called, a cut of £240 million in education, and a cut of £33 million in health and personal social services. This means that items in the social budget like, let us say, invalid vehicles and other benefits, health centre development and the upgrading of long-stay wards in mental handicap and mental illness hospitals will all come in for pruning in the interests of restricting resources to provide for export and capital investment.
At this moment of all moments, should we launch into a net increase of public expenditure of at least £1 million to set up an abortive, bureaucratic, time-consuming, irrelevant purposeless piece of bureaucracy, solely to rubber-stamp the decision of the police when there is no case to answer in a trial?

Dr. Summerskill: I am not clear how the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) brings £1 million into the amendment. It speaks of £7,500, £4,000 and £2,400, but the hon. Member speaks of £1 million in relation to the amendment.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Lady's question leads me to think that she has only just stopped reading her brief and started listening to my speech. I am tempted to start at the beginning again and go right through it. I have told her already—

Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is right. I submit that the hon. Gentleman is making a speech about whether it is right, at a time when we are restricting public expenditure, to set up a Police Complaints Board at all. That is a Second Reading or Third Reading matter. I put it to you humbly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is nothing to do with the amendment which the hon. Gentleman is purporting to move.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Frankly, it was in my mind that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) was quite


wide of the amendment. I think he has covered the point and will not repeat his speech from the beginning.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am always anxious to help but we are in a position of incomes policy and the purpose of my amendment is to make certain that this group of people who are to be lumbered on us will not be exempted from the incomes policy. My hon. Friend is, with respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, entirely in order in having regard to the total financial and economic situation in which we find ourselves.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have allowed the hon. Member for Barkston Ash to pursue his point, but he should get down to the terms of the amendment now.

Mr. Alison: I shall obviously have to stick more closely to the terms of the amendment. If the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, who is an old hand at these games, wishes me to do so, I can tot up the items and show that they come to much too high a figure in relation to what ought to be spent in this direction.
This is not the moment at which to be launching into expenditure on board salaries of this sort. We ought not to be thinking of spending up to £l million a year when services are being cut in so many other directions.
If we are to cut the money spent on long-stay hospitals for the mentally handicapped—where the walls need painting, and curtains and cupboards need to be provided—we ought not to be spending money in the way proposed in the Bill. I may have common ground to some extent with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow in this respect. The priorities are wrong. It is more important to go ahead with social expenditure of the sort I have mentioned and to hold back the expenditure which will result from the Bill.
We all agree that justice needs to be done. It must also be seen to be done. It is not a priority objective at the present time that we should sacrifice expenditure in a whole range of crucial social areas in order to set up a board which will please no one, which will not contain the sort of safeguard sought in an earlier new clause, and will simply result in

paper-chasing by a lot of new civil servants.
The amendment seeks to put a restraint on the salaries of the board officers. Indeed, it might well deter many of them from accepting office. The Bill is a travesty of the policies of the Government concerning priorities for expenditure. It is for that reason that I have moved the amendment, and I hope the House will accept it.

Mr. Mikardo: As the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) was good enough to refer in a somewhat commendatory way to some observations I made earlier, it may seem churlish for me to be rude, as I shall be, about his speech. But what he said illustrates perfectly a charge I made earlier, which was resented by the hon Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine).
My charge was that in general hon. Members opposite have paid lip-service throughout the Committee stage and throughout this debate to the desirability of having a Police Complaints Board, but they really do not want it at all. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash said that, as we are now in a situation in which public expenditure is being cut, this is not the time at which to introduce a Bill of this sort. In other words, he was saying that the Bill should be scrapped.
Hon. Members opposite have said over and over again that they are in favour of the Bill. They are in theory but they are not in practice. They want to get married without having to consummate the marriage. Their position has been exposed over and over again. I do not need any lectures from the hon. Member for Barkston Ash about cuts in public expenditure. He and his colleagues supported the Government in their cuts in public expenditure. I did not, and will not. I do not need lectures on that score. But here we are talking not about public expenditure generally but about an amendment which limits the salaries that may be paid to members of the board.
The board is to consist of not fewer than nine members, one of whom will be chairman. Let us not worry about the figure of £l million mentioned. If the hon. Member had confined himself to the subject of the amendment, as you


told him to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the House would have seen that what he was talking about assumed half the members to be full-time and half part- time. The calculation is one times £7,500. four times £4,000 and four times £2,400. That comes to £33,100—only about 3 per cent. of the £1 million reached by the hon. Gentleman in his flight of fantasy.
If I were not convinced earlier that Conservative Members do not want this board however much they pay lip-service to it, if I were not convinced before that they were being two-faced about the matter, this amendment now convinces me. They know that one cannot recruit people at these salaries.
Where is one to look for these people? What head-hunting organisation is one to employ to find people to give full time to this job—a job that demands an expertise and carries a great deal of responsibility—for £4,000 per year? Looking round the House, I do not think that there are more than about 30 Members who are good enough to undertake the job—and we get a great deal more than £4,000 a year. I do not see how one can attract people better than we are in this House at salaries a great deal less than those paid to hon. Members.
Therefore, I do not think this is a serious amendment. It is a wrecking amendment. It says "We will have a Police Complaints Board, but will put the salaries at a level to make it impossible to recruit members for it." There. fore, it will not be set up and will not happen. Let us forget all the hoo-ha about whether the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor should appoint. I ask the hon. Member for Barkston Ash where he can find people to do the job for £4,000.
I suggest that the amendment is a bad joke and the Opposition know that it is not a serious amendment. If this matter is pressed to a Division, it would indicate with absolute clarity to the country that every time Opposition Members say that they are in favour of clarity, every time they say that they are in favour of independent police investigation procedures, they are not telling the truth.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: There has been some harmony between the hon. Member

for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) and me on the Bill. I am sorry if that harmony is to be at least temporarily disrupted.
I drafted this amendment with the utmost seriousness. I did so because I think that the House should have regard to the situation of constituents. We all know that a very large number of our constituents find it hard to make ends meet. By the time they have met rising expenses, rent, electricity and the rest, many of my constituents have nothing left. They would take it very hard if the House, late at night, set up a new board whose nine members were to be paid very high salaries. If we were convinced that it was indispensable to have these large salaries in order to recruit people, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow would have a point. But I do not believe it is indispensable.
We want people on the board who are willing to invest a little of their time, not just for the money but because they believe in it. I have deliberately framed the amendment on the assumption that the people who will serve on the board will come from a variety of walks of life and will feel they are contributing something to the public interest. Their salary must recognise the importance of their duties, but it will probably not be the whole of the increment they receive.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I have been following the hon. Member's argument closely. Would he condemn Cadbury Schweppes Ltd for giving £76,000 to a former director? Is that not the sort of extravagance about which he is complaining?

Mr. Griffiths: Not entirely. Cadbury Schweppes Ltd's salaries are paid from the earnings of a private firm. We are handing out taxpayers' money. There is a great difference between money earned by work and effort and that handed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who puts his hand into the taxpayer's pocket and takes the money regardless of whether the taxpayer agrees.

Mr. Mikardo: When the Bill is passed and the Prime Minister is making the appointments and looking for people, I am thinking of trespassing on a 50-year friendship with my right hon. Friend and recommending the appointment of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds


(Mr. Griffiths) to the board. Would he accept—at £4,000 a year?

Mr. Griffiths: I would accept for a great deal less, except that my parliamentary duties would preclude me from accepting the appointment. Of course, the Prime Minister must make his own decision.
I did not take part in the previous debate and I do not wish to go back over what was said except to mention that I am never in favour of increasing the patronage of any Minister, including the Prime Minister.
The Government claim that the board will be financed for £300,000. I have told them that is moonshine. There is no chance of it being done inside £300,000. Of that sum, £133,000 will be devoted to salaries. No doubt much of it will go to permanent staff. That is as it should be. But, according to the Minister, the chairmen and members of the board are to receive £96,000 between them. At a time when we are making so many cuts in social services, do hon. Members really believe that a board whose nine members will share £96,000 a year should receive such a high priority? Which hon. Gentleman will say to his constituents that he has tonight agreed to the payment of £96,000 to nine men?

Mr. George Cunningham: I would pay for it by taking the £150,000 of taxpayers' money which we give to the Conservative Opposition to help them to do inadequate research for their work in this Chamber. That would give us enough money and a bit left over.

Mr. Griffiths: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Having made that proposal, I am sure that he will apply it equally to the funds made available to all parties. I hope, therefore, that he will take up the matter with Ministers on his own Front Bench.

Mr. George Cunningham: I have done so.

Mr. Griffiths: They repudiated the suggestion. The hon. Gentleman has experts on reputation on his own Front Bench. There is no need for me to repudiate it. The £96,000 for salaries for the members of the Board would be entirely acceptable in different circumstances.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow will see on the Notice Paper a later amendment in which we propose that the implementation of the Bill should be postponed for one year. There is no argument that the board is needed and no argument that a proper salary should be paid to those who serve, but in our present national circumstances we should be wise to defer this less-than-indispensable expenditure for some time.
In my relatively small county of Suffolk we have had to meet the Government's demands for reductions in local expenditure. We have been able to achieve a saving roughly comparable to the new expenditure which the Bill generates, of just on £300,000 in this fashion. We have cut expenditure on homes for spastic children. We have saved a good deal by stopping the spastic homes programme. We have saved a little more by cutting our meals on wheels for elderly people living in isolated villages. We have stopped the provision of home helps.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is creating some difficulty for the Chair. Without going into details of what has been done in a district council or county council, it is sufficient to make a passing reference to it. Let us get down to the question of the amount which is stated in the amendment. It is unnecessary to give details of the cuts. There is a smile on the hon. Gentleman's face, but I know that he appreciates what I am saying.

Mr. Griffiths: The smile on my face, Mr. Deputy Speaker, simply shows that when you intervene I respond with gladness.
To provide for these payments to the members of the board there have to be offsetting cuts in public expenditure elsewhere. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made plain that there is to be no overall increase in public expenditure. If there is to be an increase in public expenditure to pay these salaries, there must be a corresponding decrease elsewhere. I am illustrating the cuts which are needed to save the amount to be spent on salaries alone for the members of the board.
The amendment proposes figures which make a good deal of sense in present circumstances and which can be increased in a year's time if we can afford it. For a part-time member, who will not need


to attend more than two-and-a-half days a week, I have suggested an emolument of precisely the amount received by a fully-trained constable when he takes up his duties. I think that is perfectly fair. A police constable is expected to risk his life and face up to all the demands of the police service today, whether of terror, crime or demonstration, and for that he receives £2,400 a year. It is perfectly reasonable that a part-time member of the board who, I would hope, is contributing something to the public interest because he believes in it would not demand for his services more than a police constable gets for the full-time duty which he performs. I think that is a reasonable figure in the circumstances. I would like to hear from hon. Gentlemen whether they believe that a part-time member of the board ought in the circumstances, to receive more than a full-time police constable.

Mr. George Cunningham: I am always delighted to oblige the hon. Gentleman. Would he give us more information in respect of police pay? I presume that in making the speech he has made tonight, as well as on other occasions, he very much believes in what he is saying as well as in the public necessity for saying the things he does. Is he not, however, in receipt of a salary in respect of his functions which is paid for out of the contributions of hard-pressed police officers and police constables? In order that we can compare the other salaries he is receiving would the hon. Gentleman care to say how much he is paid at the moment by the Police Federation?

Mr. Griffiths: I shall be delighted to do so. I am receiving precisely what the Prime Minister received when he was the consultant adviser to the Police Federation many years ago. The amount which is provided by the Police Federation for the task which I am glad, statutorily, to perform is substantially less than— [Interruption.] I do not think the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) understands that the federation is a statutory body. It is set up by Act of Parliament and is a statutory body. The amount in question is substantially less than the lowest figure I have suggested in the amendment. I have met the point of the hon. Gentleman totally. I would be happy indeed if those

who are prepared to work part-time on the board would accept the same figure.

Mr. George Cunningham: What figure does the hon. Gentleman get?

Mr. Griffiths: I have given the hon. Gentleman the answer I intended to give. This is a matter for the Police Federation.
I will continue, if I may, with the remaining figures that I have proposed. I have suggested that a full-time member should receive a payment of £4,000 per annum. That is perfectly reasonable in present circumstances because it approximates to the figure which is paid to a full-time inspector of the police service. A police inspector has a general duty within his sub-division to deal with all matters of administration, public order, prosecutions and the rest. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that a full-time member of the board should not, in our present national circumstances, be paid more than an inspector of the British police. In the case of the chairman I have picked a figure which is approximately equal to that of a superintendent of police. I need not elaborate upon that. I have calibrated these figures in respect of the police service itself.
The Government are proposing £96,000 for the nine members of the board. I believe that that is quite excessive. If this were explained to our constituents, I believe that they would accept the further proposition which we on this side of the House are making, that it would be wise to leave it for one year before these proposals were implemented.
11.30 p.m.
If the board would plainly give us value for money, I should have no hesitation in saying that the sums proposed by the Government should be accepted. But, unfortunately, there will be a wide variety of circumstances in which the board will do no more than shuffle paper and achieve precisely no result.
Therefore, we should have regard to the fact that there is a growing tide of opinion which believes that there are far too many people telling other people to mind their own business about the public purse. For that general reason, as well as for the particular ones which my hon. Friends and I have suggested, I hope that the amendment will be pressed and that the Government will accept that this is not the time when another group of


people on patronage should receive sums of money vastly in excess of what the majority of our constituents would regard at this time as justified.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman has made a point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has not given way; he has finished his speech. I think that we should proceed. Did the hon. Gentleman wish to take part in the debate? If so, I shall call him.

Mr. Cryer: No.

Mr. Alison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be very disappointing if the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) were to be deprived of the opportunity to make a speech. It is clear that he is pregnant with important information—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong The hon. Member for Keighley wished to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) suggested that the Opposition were being two-faced about the Bill. If that is so, I suppose, with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and to the police force, that might not be inappropriate, because the police force, if not two-faced about the Bill, is certainly schizophrenic about it. Many different views are expressed in the police about whether this is a good or a bad Bill. Let the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow not to be too keen to use expressions like "two-faced", because the attitude to the Bill of many of us on this side of the House is one of considerable disquiet.
We have a problem here. I shall not go far into the issue of public expenditure, but we do not know how much money is involved in the Bill. What I am particularly concerned about is the sums dealt with by the amendment. I am concerned about the possibility of a new round of public expenditure, more money for patronage in the hands of the Prime Minister. Some of my hon. Friends recently have been inquiring into the amounts of money available as pat-

ronage in the hands of Ministers; they are extraordinarily large. The Bill would increase them, and I do not like that. The amendment would put some limit on them.
If the figures which have been bandied about are correct, the amendment would cut to roughly one-third the sum for this purpose which was suggested by the Under-Secretary of State in Committee—from about £90,000 to about £30,000. Few of us would lightly suggest that we should throw an extra £60,000 into the pot of public expenditure.
I had the same thought come into my mind as was taken up by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow—namely, is this a wrecking amendment? Is it necessary to ask "Are these salaries too little to get full-timers?" They are much too much for anything second rate, and there is no room for second-raters in this job.
It is instructive to compare these sums, which have been dealt with with contempt by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, with the salaries which are paid to our full-time police officers. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, if I had to choose between pinning my faith on a police officer or on the hon. Gentleman, I should put my faith in a senior police officer. Indeed, I go further: if I had to choose blind between pulling out the name of a senior police officer in whom to put my trust or pulling out blind the name of an hon. Member, I should probably choose to pick blind a police officer. There are fewer of them that I distrust than hon. Members that I distrust thoroughly.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow has come pretty close to the line in telling us what he thinks of our police force. He says that these salaries are not good enough for those who will poke and pry into whether the police are doing their job properly and shuffle bits of paper, but good enough for members of the police force. I do not agree with that, and neither should any police officer, or senior police officer.
I am worried about the whole concept of paying these people. After all, we are finding ourselves saddled with board after board, race relations experts and sexual discrimination experts—I chose my words carefully. Boards and commissioners are laid one upon another.
There will be increasing numbers of professional full-time recipients of complaints. We know that to justify their salaries and expenses, if they find they are not getting enough work they will go about the countryside saying "Complain more because there is not enough work for us to do." [Interruption.] Labour hon. Members mention personalities. It is not for me to defend names. I should be tempted to call hon. Members something impersonal that in common parlance would be very personal. I am not here to defend any person who sits on any board. I would have away with the whole damned lot of them. I would have away with this lot as well. But if we cannot have away with them, we should ensure that the board is not a burden on public expenditure which cannot be afforded, and which insults our police officers by its members drawing salaries vastly in excess of those of the police officers whose conduct they will be investigating.

Sir Bernard Braine: I intervene briefly to support the amendment in the sense that I think the House is owed an explanation by the Government of the cost of the board and its staff. We are told in the Explanatory Memorandum that the cost in the first year—if complaints escalate, as we expect them to do when the new machinery gets under way, the cost will rise substantially—will be about £300,000. On the basis of the existing rate at which complaints are being made against the police, we calculated, if I remember correctly, that each member of the board would have to handle no fewer than eight and a half cases per day. There is provision for part-time members of the board. Believe it or not, we were told in Committee that some of these people might work at home. So we have the ludicrous possibility of confidential files being taken by part-time members of the board to their homes.

Mr. George Cunningham: Prime Ministers.

Sir B. Braine: I have heard of cases where Prime Ministers have been careless about confidential documents. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to draw me, I will go into more detail than I intended.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take it that it will be within the ambit of the amendment that we are discussing.

Sir B. Braine: I have been a Member long enough to know that I can remain on my feet only as I am in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the position.

Sir B. Braine: I am glad that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, appreciate my position. In fact, I think that you know me well enought now to appreciate that I never challenge a ruling from the Chair, that I always seek to keep within the rules of order, and that I do not normally rise to my feet to make other than serious remarks. I am engaged, despite the intervention of an hon. Gentleman who sees fit only to come into the Chamber at this late hour, in trying to draw to the attention of the House the difficulty of assessing the proper remuneration.
The burden being placed upon the nine members of the board—whether they be full-time or part-time—will be considerable. The figures suggested in the amendment may be totally inadequate to attract men and women of the right calibre. Indeed, the Prime Minister, who now has this fresh patronage in his hand, may find it difficult enough to appoint to the board people who would be ready to undertake the heavy burden that I have described. That is all the more reason for ensuring that there are statutory safeguards in the Bill to see that the right consultations take place in order that people of adequate quality and capacity are appointed.
It seems almost impossible for the House to make up its mind whether the salaries mentioned in the amendment. or sums of a greater or less amount, are adequate in the absence of any proper knowledge of what the board's total operations will cost. This matter should engage the attention of the House of Commons when there is grave anxiety both here and in the country at large about public expenditure generally.
I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary of State, in her reply to the debate, will be able to relate what is sought in the amendment to the realities of the cost of the operations of the board and


the need to attract into its service men and women of the right calibre. The absence of adequate information throughout has hampered us in our proper judgment of the Bill. I beg the hon. Lady to be frank with the House and to give us a great deal more information about the cost than has been forthcoming so far. We shall then be able to judge objectively and fairly whether the figures in the amendment are adequate.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Cryer: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I do not want to join in the filibuster that the Opposition are putting forward.

Mr. Alison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it your view that the Opposition have been engaging in a filibuster?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In my view, Members have been making their contributions in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House.

Mr. Cryer: When hon. Members opposite put forward suggestions that public expenditure and salaries should be cut, we should look at their motives. We do not want people outside to get the impression that they are prepared to advocate low salaries for others but are not prepared to remove themselves from that category or to remove themselves from the patronage which they criticise. It is quite true that they are not within the purview of the Prime Minister's patronage, but the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), in addition to his parliamentary salary of £5,750 a year, is Associate Editor of the International Aviation Review, Public Affairs Adviser to Digital Equipment Co. Ltd., and Parliamentary Adviser to Walter Judd (P.R.) Ltd.

Mr. Alison: On a point of order. 1 am enjoying the hon. Member's contribution, but I must ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it is in order, on this amendment relating to salaries of members of the board, to read out a long list of extracts from the official Register of Members' Interests?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) will not pursue that line of

argument. He has made his point, and I expect he is happy with his contribution.

Mr. Cryer: I would have thought that it was highly relevant.

Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful that my services are considered worth while by so many people. There is another entry to go into the new Register. I am Assistant Director of Information for the National Federation of Building Trades as well. All these people find that my services are valuable. That is in sharp contrast to hon. Members on the other side of the House. They are only tired trade union hacks, who would not be employable outside this House at a decent salary.

Mr. Cryer: Of course I will try to avoid the sort of personal abuse in which the hon. Member is indulging. Members of the Opposition have advocated that salaries should be cut in accordance with their amendment. In our view, the amendment would mean that the job would not attract people who would carry it out in the way we want. Therefore, it is relevant to examine the motives of those who are putting forward this amendment. If their motives are merely an attempt to wreck this section of the Bill, we can vote accordingly. But if their motives spring from a genuine concern about the sort of people on the board, and the salaries they will get, we might alter our votes.
It is quite legitimate to look at the point of view of the sort of people who are advocating only moderate salaries for important positions. If they are saying that other people should do this job at a very low salary, while they are lining their pockets as fast as they can with a number of parliamentary adviserships and directorships in addition to being paid by the taxpayers, whom they purport to defend, to the tune of £5,750 a year plus extras, we have a right to question their motives. When people stand up and advocate that others should not receive high salaries while they are getting untold doubloons, we have a right to say that this seems a little hypocritical.
It seems quite legitimate to point out that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), in addition to being consultant to the Police Federation, for which he refuses to disclose how


much he is paid, is also consultant to Cremer and Warner, Brandts Ltd., Caravans International, and, until September 1975, Felixstowe Dock—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in addition to which he is a director of Lecalite Ltd., Redman Heenan Ltd., Barber Green Ltd., Natural Gas Tubes Ltd. and Crane Fruehauf (Overseas) Ltd.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would appeal to the hon. Member to consider whether when he reads out these lists he is not filibustering. I think that he has covered the point sufficiently.

Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If this point is to pursued, let it be seriously pursued. The whole tenor of the speech by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) was that people should be paid what policemen only are paid. It casts some doubt on the validity of his argument if it turns out that he does not practice what he preaches.

Mr. Alison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will agree that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has tapped a rich vein of debate in bringing in the list of Members' interests. I hope that he will pursue the point long enough for my hon. Friends to secure a copy of the Register because there are a number of interesting entries that we should like to read out. I hope that would be in order, because the night is young and we shall have plenty of material to discuss.

Mr. Tebbit: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Tempting as it may be to go through the financial interests of all hon. Members, I am sure that you would not regard that as proper or within the rules of order. Since the remarks by me and my hon. Friends were directed at public expenditure, it is irrelevant to introduce matters of personal income, however welcome I find the advertisements for my much-sought-after talents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When 1 referred to the hon. Member for Keighley filibustering I was referring only to the length of the list he was reading from. If we are to work through the whole

list we shall be here until the morning on that alone. I hope that he will respond to the general desire to get on with the amendment.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your advice, which is sensible and soundly-based. It has been worth taking five minutes to expose the dual standards of Conservative Members in claiming to want to save public expenditure. If they had applied their own standards to the Bill they would not have tabled the amendment.
The sooner we can get rid of these outside interests the sooner we shall avoid debates like this and accept amendments based not on hypocrisy but on their true worth.

Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) went to the heart of the matter when he showed that the amendment would, if carried, seriously jeopardise the chance of a good board. The common factor of all the Conservative speeches was that they were anti-board. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) made his favourite speech, his "Clause I shall not stand part of the Bill" speech which he makes at the drop of a hat. We have heard it many times. He does not like the board and therefore he seeks to bring it within the terms of this amendment.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) revealed himself in his last sentence when he said that the board would not be giving value for money. He has already decided that it will not, even though it is not yet set up.
The amendment is being used to make the board less powerful and less influential and to destroy it. The amendment proposes low limits for the importance of the board's work and the responsibility of its members. Apart from that important, fundamental point, it is unprecedented to put the salaries of the chairman and members of a board into any Bill. But I am not saying that precedents should never be set.
The salaries of the members and chairman of the Police Complaints Board will be comparable with those of other public boards such as the Sex Discrimination Board and the Race Relations Board. Such salaries are higher than the figures


in the amendment and they are unlikely to be reduced.
To restrict the Police Complaints Board alone to an unnaturally low level of payment would obviously have an adverse effect on our ability to recruit members of the necessary calibre. The Minister for the Civil Service, under the provisions of paragraph 4 of the schedule, must give his consent to the scale of remuneration for board members, and it seems best to leave him to exercise the necessary co-ordination and control over the levels of salaries in the public sector generally. He is already doing that and will continue to do it. I urge my hon. Friends to reject the amendment.

Mr. Aitken: In attacking our amendment the Under-Secretary has used some unfair and extraordinary arguments. She is no less than Lady Bountiful when it comes to handing out taxpayers' money but she is Lady Godiva when she is clothing her arguments in a degree of veracity or respectability.
The point of the amendment is to reduce the rather generous salaries offered to the members of the board from a total of £96,000 to £30,000. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), in the context of looking at the

Division No. 151.]
AYES
[12 midnight


Aitken, Jonathan
Goodhart, Philip
Penhaligon, David


Alison, Michael
Hastings, Stephen
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hordern, Peter
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Beith, A. J.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Benyon, W.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sainsbury, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sims, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
Loveridge, John
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Mather, Carol
Stradling Thomas, J.


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tebbit, Norman


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Mayhew, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D.


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Miscampbell, Norman
Viggers, Peter


Drayson, Burnaby
Moate, Roger
Weatherill, Bernard


Eyre, Reginald
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)



Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Neubert, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Forman, Nigel
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.




NOES


Armstrong, Ernest
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mendelson, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dunnett, Jack
Mikardo, Ian


Bates, Alf
Eadie, Alex
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bean, R. E.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Newens, Stanley


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Noble, Mike


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
George, Bruce
Ogden, Eric


Cartwright, John
Grant, John (Islington C)
Parry, Robert


Clemitson, Ivor
Hardy, Peter
Pearl, Rt Hon Fred


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Harper, Joseph
Pendry, Tom


Cohen, Stanley
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
John, Brynmor
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cryer, Bob
Lamond, James
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Rooker, J. W.


Davidson, Arthur
McCartney, Hugh
Roper, John


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
McElhone, Frank
Sedgemore, Brian


Deakins, Eric
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Selby, Harry


Dormand, J. D.
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

list of Members' interests, becomes a good second to other Members' interests.

Mr. Mikardo: In the first place, that is not true, and, in the second place, I was not saying that people should be paid less than myself.

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman was saying that salaries of £7,500 and £4,000 a year were contemptuous. He must live in Millionaires' Row. Those salaries are adequate and good for the duties expected. It is perfectly honourable and respectable for a party like mine, which has consistently argued for cuts in public spending, to say that the line should be drawn somewhere, and certainly it should be drawn for a board that will cost over £300,000. One only has to add up salaries, secretarial, postal, office administration and travel costs to find that the figure of £300,000 is a complete fraud. The Minister has not levelled with the House. It is the wrong scheme at the wrong price. There are many cheaper ways of introducing an independent element into the board, including using the Ombudsman or a lay observer.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 64.

Sllkin Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)



Skinner, Dennis
Tinn, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Spearing, Nigel
Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. David Stoddart and


Stallard, A. W.
Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. Ted Graham.


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wrigglesworth, Ian.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.
We have debated a number of the most important amendments and disposed of them. One of the features of the Bill is that it seems possible to make the same speech equally relevantly on every amendment. I think it can be said that we have broken the back of the Bill, but a fair number of amendments remain. After a pause the House may, I feel, be prepared to deal expeditiously with the remaining amendments at a later stage.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure that the Home Secretary is right. In view of my past experience in this House, I shall forbear making any further comments on the position as a result of the voting figures we have just had. I think that the House on another occasion could deal expeditiously with the rest of the Bill. I think that the Home Secretary is wise in those circumstances to propose the motion.

Question put and agreed to

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Coinmittee), to be further considered this day.

Orders of the Day — FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENT

12.12 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I beg to move,
That the draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 26th April, be approved.
Family income supplement is a benefit for the lower-paid working family with at least one dependent child payable if the family's normal gross weekly income is below amounts prescribed by Parliament. The weekly rate of the benefit is one half of the amount by which the family's total weekly income falls below the appropriate prescribed amount, subject to a maximum payment.
The draft regulations provide for the prescribed amounts and maximum weekly

payments to be increased with effect from 20th July 1976, a year after the last up-rating. Regulation 2 increases the prescribed amount for a one-child family by £7·50 from £31·50 to £39, for a two-child family by £8·50 from £35 to £43·50, for a three-child family by £9·50 from £38·50 to £48, and so on, the amount for each additional child being £4·50 higher instead of £3·50 as at present. Regulation 3 increases the maximum weekly payment for all families by £1·50. Thus the maximum for a one-child family will be £8·50 a week, for a two-child family £9 a week, for a three-child family £9·50 a week, the amount increasing, as now, by 50p for each additional child.
The effect of increasing the prescribed amounts—subject to the new maximum payments and to the Family Income Supplements (Child Interim Benefit) (Consequential) Regulations 1976, which provide for awards current at the uprating date to be adjusted to take account of child interim benefit—will be to increase the weekly sums payable to existing payees. Two-parent beneficiaries with one child will receive an extra £3·70 or £3·80 a week after rounding, while one-parent beneficiaries with one child will receive an extra £3 a week on top of their child interim benefit of £1·50 a week. For larger families the increase will be 50p higher for each additional child. For the small number of families receiving maximum payments the increases will be limited to £1·50. But the higher prescribed amounts will help those families to remain on the maximum rate when they come to renew their awards even though their gross weekly income has gone up since their last annual award was determined.
On previous upratings of the supplement the qualifying income levels have been increased broadly in line with prices, with the result that, as the earnings of the low-paid outstripped prices, the supplement has reached progressively fewer people until only about 60,000 needy families are getting this help. The increase we are now proposing is expected to restore the relativity between average gross earnings and the prescribed amounts


which existed in 1971 when the scheme was introduced and to bring into entitlement a considerable number of families who are at present excluded because their incomes are over the existing limits. Furthermore, the new qualifying income levels will ensure that families now getting the supplement who have received up to a £6 pay rise during the year will continue to be entitled to the benefit when their current awards expire. Overall, in the period immediately following the up-rating we expect that some 85,000 families will receive family income supplement at a total cost, including the uprating, of about £19 million. This compares with a cost of £13 million for the year from July 1975 and will thus represent an improvement in real terms.
As in previous years, the change-over to the new rates will be affected with the minimum of inconvenience to beneficiaries. Families already holding payment books at the old rate will be asked to return them for over-stamping; new claims received between 25th May and 20th July will be assessed under both sets of prescribed amounts with awards determined at she old rate until 19th July and at the new rate thereafter.
During this difficult economic period the Government consider it essential to maintain tile scope of a benefit which is so directly geared to working families bringing up children on very low incomes. As long as this means-tested benefit has a role to play in helping working families in need, we are determined that the supplement will be effective. I am pleased, therefore, to be able to commend these regulations to the House.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It has been difficult to get any information from the Government in recent weeks about their policy intentions on family poverty and family support. Therefore, it is reassuring that the Government have come forward with some measures in this respect.
It is also reassuring, if rather surprising, to see that what is being brought forward is an uprating of the Conservative-introduced means-tested family income supplement. No longer do Labour Members attack this innovation of the Conservative Government but, instead, Labour Ministers acknowledge its con-

tinuing rôle in support of low-paid families. Indeed, there were cheers from a surprising part of the House, just below the Government Gangway, when the Minister announced the extent of the increase in the supplement.
However, having got this measure, one would like to fit it into some scheme of Government policy for family incomes support and to relate it to some kind of strategy. But, unfortunately, it is clear that this ad hoc up rating relating to the circumstances of the moment is a temporary stop-gap and does not fit sensibly into a long-term strategy for family support. Indeed, I begin to fear that the Government no longer have any longterm strategy and are getting into a hopeless muddle as they try to envisage how they will handle the subject of family support in the next few years.
To put the regulations in context, one has to look at policies of successive Governments in the last few years leading to FIS and its uprating. The Conservative Government pursued a clear policy. They came to office pledged to increase family allowances, but found on examination that the cost of doing that would be disproportionate to the help which it would give to low-paid families. The result was that it was the last Conservative Government that brought in family income supplement—and at that time in the teeth of fierce opposition from Labour Members. The supplement as devised by the Conservative Government was meant to be a temporary measure. It was an immediate way of dealing with problems of the low-paid families while we prepared our tax credit scheme. We got as far as the Green Paper on the tax credit scheme and planned that FIS should be phased out when a new and better scheme of tax credits, not means-tested, could be introduced.
When the present Government came to power, they inherited that position with the tax credit scheme admittedly in a comparatively early stage of preparation. They scrapped any further work on the proper integration of the tax system with the social security system and legislated last year to produce the child benefit. We supported that Act in principle because it at least represented the child benefit part of our tax credit scheme.
Since then, mainly because of their mismanagement of the economy which is in a


dreadful state—though the Minister at the Dispatch Box is not responsible for that—the Government have got themselves in a great mess and have postponed the introduction of the new child benefit until April 1977, producing a succession of excuses, but not the real one--the economic crisis. They have even referred as an excuse to difficulties with high alumina cement in buildings which would be vital to the scheme.
It has been extremely difficult to get a clear statement from the Government about the future of FIS, family allowances and the child tax allowances, all of which were originally meant, by both sides to be consumed by a new and better system of child benefits.
The Government have made no announcement about the level of child benefit, which is the most critical thing that people interested in these matters want to know. The Government have delayed discussions and legislation. There is nothing in the Finance Bill about the child tax allowance, and we have had some pretty delphic answers to Questions in the House.
Now that they have been thrown totally off course on the child benefit scheme, the Government have produced FIS regulations again and made clear that they are more committed than any previous Government to using FIS as the main weapon for the foreseeable future to alleviate child poverty and for family support.
The Minister's remarks could have been neatly abbreviated by saying that this increase was necessary to ensure that anyone who had a £6 pay increase last year would not be made worse off if he is a FIS beneficiary. On that basis, the FIS increases look generous, but they are a bad omen for the general policy because of the shortcomings of this means-tested benefit, which was why we saw it as a temporary measure.
It throws a grave light on the Government's intentions on child benefits. From the information we have been able to extract—it is like drawing teeth when one goes through the columns of Hansard looking for such information—it appears that, at nil cost in public expenditure terms, the child benefit will

be £2·34 per child in April 1977. The level leaked to the Press, in an attempt to test the temperature of reactions, has been £2·50.
But if FIS were to go and family allowances and child tax allowances were put together in a new child benefit of £2·50 per week per child, the FIS recipients would be dramatically worse off. Consequently, one can see how difficult it would be with the new levels to consider getting rid of FIS in the child benefit scheme.
In a Written Answer yesterday, I was told that a child benefit for a FIS family would have to be £8·90 a week to match the value of FIS. The annual cost to the Exchequer would be £4,000 million.It clearly is an understatement to say that it cannot be done. The fact that the FIS benefits are being set at this level indicates that the Government are giving up all prospect of ending FIS and are beginning to us it as a weapon. It is no surprise to find that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) received a Written Answer which stated baldly:
The Family Income Supplement Scheme will continue after the introduction of child benefits."—[Official Report, 17th May 1976; Vol. 911, c. 422.]
Family income supplement will be retained after April 1977 because otherwise child benefits would have to be set at a hugely unrealistic level if the beneficiaries of FIS were not suddenly to be made poorer by the withdrawal of FIS with the introduction of child benefits.
The regulations emphasise that the Government are committed, as someone allowed The Times and The Guardian, but not Parliament, to know, to a very modest level of child benefit, and their main weapon will be FIS. The Child Benefit Bill will turn out to be a public relations exercise for the foreseeable future because economic mismanagement and the state of the economy have overtaken it and there is no way of financing it properly. Means-tested FIS will be the method used by the Government for the foreseeable future to get money to lower-paid workers with families.
The Labour Government should reflect that they have nailed their flag firmly to the only mast left standing in their policy—means-tested FIS for family


support. They find that this Conservative used car is running much better and will continue to run much better and more reliably than the Socialist limousine produced last year in the Child Benefit Bill, which will remain gleaming in the showroom for the foreseeable future. What a light that sheds on Government policy after April 1977! I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that he is stuck with means-tested benefit of the kind abhorred by his party in the past.
Let us consider what is meant by the use of FIS as the main means of family support from July 1977. Let us consider what is wrong with heavy dependence on FIS in the context of the Government's economic and tax policy. In comparing FIS eligibility levels with the tax thresholds and the tax liabilities of low-paid workers, one snag is the overlap of FIS with tax and the effect that has on recipient families.
It is clearly a nonsense that the Government should hand out FIS to families on the basis that their earnings are regarded as inadequate to maintain their families and, at the same time, take back income tax at the standard rate of 35p in the pound on the basis that their earnings are so substantial that they can afford that amount of taxation towards bloated public expenditure. That overlap between FIS and income tax is the most important source of the poverty trap about which there is such growing legitimate concern. It existed when we were in office but it has become worse in the last two years and the regulations make it dramatically worse.
If FIS beneficiaries earn an extra £1 at their work, that £1 becomes subject to income tax, they lose 50p. of their FIS entitlement, they may lose part of their rent and rate rebates and part of their free school meals entitlement. FIS beneficiaries who earn an extra £1 may find themselves worse off because they lose more than the £1 by way of tax and loss of benefits.
The Government acknowledge that 50,000 heads of families are already—before the regulations come into effect—in theory worse off every time they earn an extra £1 and in practice worse off taking account of the 12-month delay in registering FIS entitlement. This is the

problem of means-tested family support together with such appallingly low tax thresholds as this Government have set. Government spokesmen in the past have blamed all this on means-tested benefits. It is actually a combination of means-tested benefits and tax—a combination of the Government raising the benefit levels much faster than the tax thresholds. This Government have consistently raised benefits much faster than tax thresholds and have made the poverty trap much deeper and much worse.
This year's Budget, and this regulation, will go a long way towards making matters worse. Child tax allowances are to go up by £60 fo reach child as a result of the Budget and the Finance Bill. The family income supplement eligibility limits in this regulation will go up by substantially more. Putting it another way, last year the gap between FIS and tax thresholds was roughly £9; this year it is £12.
The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that 75,000 people will in future be worse off for every pound they earn. instead of the 50,000 I have mentioned. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that fact, because today the Chancellor attempted to explain a meeting he had with the Child Poverty Action Group. In a long reply to a Written Question he said the poverty trap would get no worse. He added:
In practice, however, no one getting a £6 rise will lose FIS in consequence, compared with his entitlement a year earlier, because the increases in the FIS income limits will in all cases be more than £6."—[Official Report. 19th May 1976; Vol. 911, c. 570–1.]
The Chancellor gives that as his argument for saying that the poverty trap is not worsening. He is using an extraordinary definition of "the poverty trap" I do not think he, or whoever provided the answer for him, understands this point. I accept that this regulation will mean that no one getting £6 a week more will be worse off as far as FIS entitlement is concerned. But it is a fact that the FIS eligibility levels will now be even higher above the tax thresholds, and because the child tax allowances have been put up less than FIS, the result is—I ask the Minister to confirm this—that this regulation and the Budget will in fact worsen the position.
This regulation, and the Budget, will mean that a greater number of FIS recipients will be paying tax than were paying last year. This is another step towards discouraging the family man to get into work or to keep in work or to work harder. It puts more people than ever into a position where extra effort and earnings are simply not worth it. This is the first real flaw in the regulation. The answer is a proper child benefit scheme paid to all those in work and out of work at an adequate level. The Government's economic mismanagement has meant they have had to abandon this as a target.
The next deficiency relates to the position of single-parent families. The regulation provides us with an important opportunity to discuss a group which is still not discussed often enough in the House. One-parent families have become increasingly dependent on family income supplement. When we alter the rates of FIS we ought to bear in mind that this is the main help which will go to working one-parent families in our community. They are an ever-rising proportion of the beneficiaries—32,000 out of 62,000 in October 1975.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey produced, in a Written Answer on 25th February, a statistic showing that the proportion of FIS beneficiaries who are one-parent families has increased from 32 per cent. of all beneficiaries in 1971 to over 50 per cent. More than half of them are now one-parent families. They will look to this regulation to see what the Government will do for them. They will also look to the child interim benefit, which is the most appalling confidence trick foisted on them in the Child Benefit Bill last year, which gives full value to a few one-parent families and leaves a few worse off.
This regulation makes it much more difficult for the Government to deny that a number of one-parent families will be worse off if they claim child interim benefit.
Child interim benefit is taxable. It is taken from those who receive supplementary benefit. The Minister has been trying to deny that there are many people who are worse off as a result of these factors. But in July this year the FIS

entitlement will be reassessed, and when one-parent families are reassessed for income supplement in July, child interim benefit will be taken into account and will count towards income for FIS purposes.
Every one-parent family which has applied for child interim benefit which also receives FIS will not get the full benefit of this FIS uprating. If any one-parent family has applied for and has received the benefit, it will normally reduce its FIS by 70p or 80p. But in some cases applying for child interim benefit will put some one-parent families above the eligibility limit for FIS in this regulation and deprive them of entitlement to FIS; that is, where FIS would have been 80p or less. So their loss is 80p. But if they lose FIS, they also lose the free pint of milk for each child, worth 60p a week, and they will lose their automatic entitlement to free school meals, although they may retain entitlement on their income if they apply for it. When one couples the effect of child interim benefit and tax on FIS claims, they may be worse off.
Let me quote the clear explanation from the Child Poverty Action Group's memorandum to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which it submitted a few days ago. This passage illustrates the point:
The tax threshold, for example, for a one-child family is now £26'63 a week, but the FIS eligibility levels have been raised to £39 a week. In table 2 we presented the tax threshold together with the FIS eligibility limits for a one, two and three child family. The effect on a family's income if it falls between the tax threshold and the FIS eligibility limit is as follows. For each £1 increase in earnings, a family will pay 35p in tax, 5ip in national insurance, and risk losing 50p in FIS. This is a marginal tax rate of 90¾ per cent. and takes no account of other means-tested benefit—such as free school dinners which are valued at 75p a week for each child—which the family may also lose as its income rises".
A tax-paying, FIS-receiving one-parent family which has been so misguided as to apply for child interim benefit runs the serious risk of being worse off. Worse still, their tax codings are adjusted on the basis that they are receiving child interim benefit when many of them are not applying for it, and the Treasury is taking no steps to warn people that their codes have been changed or that they should not apply for benefit. One-parent


families will not get the full benefit of this regulation if they have claimed child interim benefit. Therefore, as a result of this regulation, a number of one- parent families will be worse off if they claim the child interim benefit.
I turn to another anomaly—and I am sorry to take time, but time was saved on the preivous legislation we discussed and we do not often get the chance to talk about family poverty. I am afraid that time has already been taken up by the number of flaws to be found in this measure. The next one to which I draw the Minister's attention is the failure to raise the maximum amount of family income supplement payable in line with the other increases in the regulation. At present, the maximum amount of FIS that any beneficiary can receive is £7, plus 50p for each additional child. That maximum, by definition, affects the very poorest families who apply for FIS. There would become an entitlement to more than that maximum only if the gap between the prescribed amount and actual earnings was very large.
The increase in prescribed amounts in the regulation is quite generous, and, as the Minister has said, most beneficiaries will get an extra £3·70 or £3·80, plus 50p for each additional child, paid as extra family income supplement, but the maxi- mum amount rule is not going up by that much. It is increased from £7 to £8·50. If a person is already subject to the maximum rule, and he is subject to it if his earnings are a long way below the FIS eligibility requirements, it is impossible under the regulation to get more than £1·50 each week however many children the beneficiary may have.
The National Council for One-Parent Families has prepared some estimates which I ask the Minister to confirm or deny. No doubt he has seen them. The council states that at present there are 6,000 beneficiaries subject to the maxi- mum amount rule who will get only the extra £1.50, and that a further 20,000 will be affected because they will be brought up against the maximum amount ceiling for the first time. They will get more than £1·50 but less than the full increase that the eligibility levels would otherwise allow.
Therefore, the regulation is least attractive of all for the lowest-paid

families applying for family income supplement. The reason is that the maximum amount has not been raised in line with the other prescribed amounts. Perhaps the Minister will explain why the maximum amount has not been raised in line with the other prescribed amounts so that the poorest families will find themselves less well treated than they might otherwise expect. Presumably this has been done to save money. What is the saving that has been achieved by this feature of the changes that the Minister has announced?
I have asked quite enough specific questions of that sort, but I ask the Minister to give us a fuller account of the Government's policy and reasoning than he has been able to give so far, and his apologies for the regulation's deficiencies.
Finally, I ask the Minister to tell the House how many claimants he expects to take up this means-tested benefit. The total number of claimants has been dropping. One snag with means-tested benefits is that many who are entitled to them do not apply. The take-up for FIS is estimated to be only about 75 per cent.
The Government's budget for advertising FIS has been dropping. In the past I always thought that was because the Government did not like FIS as it was a Conservative measure. When in Opposition they made hostile speeches about it. I thought that they had decided not to advertise it so that there would be a low take-up, so that they could say what an iniquitous innovation it was. But the Government are now using FIS as their main policy, as the main hope they can offer to low income families and all low income groups.
That means that means testing is back in vogue. The Government's strategy for an alternative child benefit scheme is on the point of total collapse. As they are stuck with this means-tested benefit, I hope that it will have a proper advertising budget. I hope that steps will be taken to bring the new levels to the attention of families who can benefit from them, and that something will be done to increase the take-up. As the Government are forced to resort to FIS, they must make the best use of it. They must try to get the best out of a very bad job.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Bruce George: It is a pleasure to see so many hon. Members present tonight. I remember the corresponding debate last year when tripartite talks took place between my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones), who I hope will be with us again soon, the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and myself. The sudden rush of Members into the Chamber is a clear indication of the developing enthusiasm on both sides of the House for the Government's family policy.
I never cease to marvel at the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, and I have observed him at a distance for over two years. He always seems to manage to portray the previous Government's policy in a scintillating light and to attack this Government's policy in what he perceives to be a devastating way. The man on the Clapham omnibus or the man in the Public Gallery looking down quite impartially might get the impression that the previous Government's record on family policy was successful beyond belief. But we, who view matters more dispassionately, are fully aware of the true effects of those policies. I compliment the Labour Government on their efforts to relieve and to combat family poverty, despite increasingly difficult economic circumstances.
We have a strategy on poverty, but, with the problems facing the Government, regrettably we have to divert somewhat from the overall grand strategy. I hope that the concept of family income supplement, which many Labour Members bitterly opposed, at the time that it was introduced, will be abandoned and that we shall see something much better in its place.
I have an ambivalent attitude to the raising of the family income supplement. I compliment the Government on the largest increase so far in the prescribed rates. Nevertheless, I dislike the principle underlying the concept of the family income supplement.
Last year the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda—these phrases were not echoed tonight—said:
We on this side of the House have consistently made clear our dislike of the Family Income Supplement Scheme, based as it is on a means test."—[Official Report, 15th May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 846.]

I do not want to see a regular patching-up of something that I regard as unworthy. I do not see this as a regular debate in the way that we see debates on Rhodesia, for instance—perennial events that never seem to end.
I hope that debates on the family income supplement will not go on much longer. I hope that the Government will implement their theoretical approach—namely, that the family income supplement is destined for elimination. I hope that it will be eliminated in the not-too-distant future. I welcome the rise in payments, but I hope that this debate will be another swift step towards the ultimate demise of FIS. I hope that it will be phased out as swiftly as possible with the minimum financial disadvantage to the thousands of families who at present are forced to live under the scheme.
I note that the numbers receiving FIS have been dropping. About 47,000 families were in receipt of family income supplement just after it was introduced. Having reached a peak of 101,000 in 197–3, the figure has gone down. In a Written Answer to me, the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), said:
Almost 59,000 families were receiving family income supplement in February 1976 and it is estimated that the number will rise to 85,000 immediately after July 1976."—[Official Report, 29th April 1976; Vol. 910. c. 160.]
It would appear that there has been a general downturn in the number of recipient families. That downturn is being halted, regretfully, for reasons of which we are aware, from July 1976.
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe said that the advertising of FIS had declined. I pointed out in last year's debate that it had declined. But the supreme irony is that when the Conservative Government spent more on advertising FIS, the takeut, rarely limped above 50 per cent. Yet, with the decline in advertising, which I deplore, I am assured that the figure has reached 75 per cent. I do not want to cast too many doubts on the technique of analysis of the Family Expenditure Survey, but I should like more evidence of the fact that the take-up has reached 75 per cent.
I hope that time is running out for the family income supplement. A possible explanation for the decreasing


numbers in receipt of family income supplement is the success of the Government's recent pay policies, which have concentrated on helping the low-paid.
In the recent publication "The Poor and the Crisis", to which the hon. Member for Rushcliffe referred, the Child Poverty Action Group, in a post-Budget memorandum to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, wrote of Government initiatives in pay policy:
The policy has had the effect of reducing the rate of inflation, while at the same time giving pay increases which have benefited substantially low-paid workers, particularly those claiming means-tested benefits.
It goes on to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has distributed benefit from tax concessions so as to favour families with children.
It says of the second stage of the incomes policy:
Again, the formula which has been agreed, has favoured the low-paid.
I do not want people outside to get the impression, given by Tories, that the Government's policy is to the disadvantage of the low-paid. In fact, it is quite the reverse. A combination of Government initiatives has led to modest gains for the poor, and I hope that in the next 12 months we shall see further and greater improvements.

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: While my hon. Friend is on the point on raising the wages of the lower-paid, and the other side of the coin—assisting low-paid families—would he say a word about the attitude of the Opposition to the Employment Protection Bill when it was going through the House? I remember sitting on the Committee on that Bill when the Opposition put down amendments which tried to weaken its effect, even though the Bill, which is now an Act, was designed in many respects to help the lower-paid to raise their wages.

Mr. George: I agree entirely. I do not blame the hon. Member for Rushcliffe. If all the Conservatives had his approach to social policy, the plight of the poor would not have been as bad as it was under the previous administration.
In commenting further on the Child Poverty Action Group's publication, the

last thing 1 want to suggest is that the group is uncritical of the Government. It is right that the Government should be subject to critical scrutiny from outside organisations. The report points out that with the fall in the tax threshold there are still anomalies of families paying tax even though they are eligible for FIS.
Families are paying tax even though their income is below the rate at which they would claim if they were not working or were drawing supplementary benefit. The tax threshold for a one-child family is £26·63, whereas the FIS level is £39 and the supplementary benefit level £32·25. For a two-child family, the tax threshold is £31·45, the FIS level £43·30, and the supplementary benefit level £35·85. For the three-child family, the tax threshold is £36·17, the FIS level £48, and the supplementary benefit level £39·45.
A further absurdity is that, although there has been a small increase in the tax threshold for families with children, the Chancellor has also increased the eligibility levels for FIS. One consequence has been the increase in the bands of income over which families are caught in the poverty trap. This needs looking at very carefully. I am deeply concerned about it. The Government have estimated that there will be an increase of 25,000 who will be caught, on top of the existing 50,000.
Anxiety has been expressed also by Mrs. Margaret Bramall, of the National Council for One-Parent Families. I hope the Minister will be able to comment on the document she has put out and the Press release in various newspapers today. She says:
Discrimination against the poorest has to stop.
She goes on to say that a further 20,000 poor families will not get the full increases in FIS, and about 6,000 will get an extra £1·50 regardless of how many children they have. Therefore, tens of thousands of lone-parent families will be worse off from 20th July 1976. She says that the great majority of the lone parents will get less than their full entitlement, and that the poorest of those with the most children will be hardest hit. She adds that FIS is of vital importance to working lone families. It has become a one-parent family benefit because the Government


have failed to provide one-parent family allowances. In conclusion, she says
Yet another poverty trap has been laid by the Government … Any lone parent who pays tax and claims Family Income Supplement ought to give up their Child Interim Benefit from 20 July, 1976, and inform the tax office at once.
One-parent families deserve a full explanation about what is happening. FIS was conceived as a small measure and it has been limited in its impact. In 1975 expenditure on it was only £11·4 million. It has never reached the large core of poor families, who have been oblivious of the existence of FIS. As a means-tested benefit it has deterred those who are too proud to claim. The complexity of filling in the forms has been a not insignificant deterrent to claiming and FIS, child benefit and family allowances together can create a degree of bemusement to people who are potential recipients.
FIS has not helped the majority of the poor. It has done little to encourage employers to raise wages. Therefore, I do not regard FIS with the same euphoria as might other hon. Members. I desperately hope that the child benefit, which is to be announced, will be generous when introduced in 1977, and I hope that it will be regularly reviewed. If it is not, I hope that it will be sufficiently high to offset the effect of long delays between upratings.
FIS is, at worst, a device to supplement poverty wages—that is, for those who work to earn their poverty. In 1972 the report "Two-Parent Families in Receipt of FIS" came out. This revealed for the first time the occupation breakdown of workers receiving FIS. It showed that a high proportion of such workers were employed in agriculture and related industries and a high proportion in distributive trades. It also showed that the low-paid came from the industries where the workers were badly unionised. We must not look simply to FIS to combat family poverty. We must aim to get higher wages in many industries.
A good report was recently produced by the Low-Pay Unit on wages councils. It showed that the wages councils, of which there are 46, determine very low wages, and that a high proportion of establishments under the aegis of wages councils do not even pay this pittance. It

shows that the wages councils inspectorate is much too small, and that the numbers in it have declined. In 1975 there were only 128 wages council inspectors to inspect more than 500,000 establishments. In addition, 90 per cent. of all establishments were not investigated by the councils, inspectorate in 1975. That represents 419,000 firms. Millions of pounds were under-paid to workers covered by the councils in 1975. Of the small number of firms investigated, 11,000 were proven to have underpaid. The wages councils inspectorate recovered over £600,000 from those companies. Of the establishments visited, 22.1 per cent. failed to display the prescribed notices informing staff of their minimum rates. None of those companies was prosecuted. If I did not display the requisite documents on my car, I would be prosecuted—and deserve to be. But these companies are not paying their workers the basic minimum wage, nor are they informing them about it.
The Government must do a great deal further to strengthen the wages councils. They must increase the size of the inspectorate, and introduce more sanctions against companies which fail to keep within the law. There must be more prosecutions, and more publicity to inform workers in the low-paid industries about their rights.
If family incomes supplement is renewed next year, I hope that it will be again a large increase, but I also hope that the Government are working on a scheme to phase it out. It has some advantages but, like pre-fabs, built after the war, it was intended to be a temporary measure. Prefabricated buildings lasted year after year, long after they should have been demolished. The Government should devise a strategy so that poverty can be eradicated and family income supplement eliminated when the resources are available.

1.1 a.m.

Mr. Deakins: My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) shares one thing in common with the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in accusing the Government of a lack of strategy towards FIS.
The Government have made clear their dislike of means-tested benefits generally. We have made solid progress in reducing dependence on means-tested benefits by


introducing the non-contributory invalidity scheme and the mobility allowance. Our object is, to reduce payments of such means-tested benefits as soon as resources permit. That applies to FIS, which we do not regard as a permanent benefit. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Rushcliffe also regarded FIS as temporary—in that both sides are united.
On the grounds of cost and the heavy tax burden involved, it must be recognised that the paying of social benefits on a non-selective basis is impracticable for the foreseeable future. For some time we shall need to rely on means-tested benefits, including FIS, to help low-income families. So long as FIS has a role to play in helping working families in need we are determined that the supplements will be effective.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: That is all very well as a general statement of policy but the Government have so far not removed any means-tested benefits and they are proposing to introduce a new one—support for school transport. The regulation increases the dependence on this benefit for the foreseeable future. Will the Minister tell us of a new attitude which relates to the practicalities of what the Government are doing?

Mr. Deakins: I mentioned two important examples of non-means-tested benefits which were introduced by this Government but not even considered by the previous Conservative Government.
I shall now deal with the poverty trap issue since it worries me as a Minister who is new to the Department. There have been misunderstandings about the action taken to eliminate the poverty trap. Many people, including pressure groups, say that following a rise in pay there is an automatic immediate reduction in means-tested benefits because of tax and higher national insurance contributions. That is not the case for tax paying families. Every £1 of increased earnings will be subject to an immediate reduction of 40·75p in income tax and national insurance contributions. But FIS will remain unaltered until the 12-month anniversary of the last award, because it is fixed for 12 months. That is, a change in family circumstances or income does not affect the amount of FIS in payment

over a 12-month period. As it is up-rated every 12 months, it will have been increased some time during the currency of the pay award—sometimes before, sometimes after. The value of increased earnings is taken into account only at the end of the 12 months, and is then compared with a new and higher income level. For this reason the number of people affected by this poverty trap is very small.
As for the family income supplement in relation to the tax threshold, it is true that ever since the introduction of FIS in August 1971, or the date on which it effectively began, prescribed amounts for FIS have, with two small exceptions, been above the tax thresholds, under both the previous Conservative Government and the two Labour Governments. The two exceptions were in August 1971 and April 1972. The prescribed amount for a four-child family was then marginally below the tax threshold for such a family, but, apart from the prescribed limit, it has always been for one-, two-, three- and four-child families and others above the tax threshold. Therefore, it is not a new problem, as the hon. Gentleman tried to imply, but a problem that has existed ever since FIS started.
The question of tax thresholds can be tackled in two ways. Obviously, there is a case for raising them specifically to alleviate problems of family poverty, but, to put the problem the other way round, surely it is not wrong to pay a benefit to people who are above the tax threshold. I do not think that any of the poverty pressure groups are claiming this, nor—to be fair—is the hon. Gentleman.
Those who take the benefit for granted and criticise the tax are being rather unfair. Surely the tax burden at any particular level is given and accepted, and the benefit given, which is tax-free, helps to mitigate it.
I know that the matter of one-parent families is a source of concern not only to the hon. Gentleman but to my hon Friends. The hon. Gentleman made the point that one-parent families were increasingly dependent on FIS, and said that nearly 51 per cent. of one-parent families last year—the last time we did a calculation—were beneficiaries of FIS. That is not quite correct. Fifty per cent. of FIS beneficiaries are one-parent families, but of one-parent families only


a relatively small proportion are in full-time work. Most of them cannot do the requisite 30 hours a week.
The hon. Gentleman raised a very important point about the interaction between the child interim benefit—CRIB—and FIS. Although CRIB can cause loss of benefit in particular weeks, the effect of not taking it into account until July is that over the year from April this year to April next year as a whole—the tax year—taxpaying families receiving both FIS and CHIB will not generally lose by comparison with those who do not claim or are not entitled to this benefit.
Because of the interaction between taxable and non-taxable and means-tested and non-means-tested benefits, it is not possible to assess the effect of claiming child interim benefit in every case. But only in unusual circumstances over the year April 1976 to April 1977 could a person or family be worse off as a result of claiming the benefit. To be put in this position, a lone parent would not only have to be paying tax and receiving a combination of means-tested benefits but her circumstances—it is usually a woman—would have to remain unchanged throughout the year. That is, she would have to remain in work, pay tax and continue to qualify for housing rebates as well as FIS.
Moreover, the overall effect of up-ratings of FIS and other means-tested benefits is to give every family a worthwhile improvement in its resources over the year.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Taking up the point the Minister made, he says that everybody will be better off over the whole year because from now until July 1976 the child interim benefit will not be affected through FIS, but will some who are receiving it and paying tax not be well advised to claim child interim benefit now and to cease claiming it in June? If so, will he take steps to publicise that, so that people can get the maximum benefit from child interim benefit, which the Government are constantly saying is a worthwhile thing?

Mr. Deakins: There would not be time, with only two months before it comes into effect, but we have given notice that CHIB would be taken into

account in the operation of FIS in July. It will be up to the individual family. It is a complicated problem and many families will need advice but there is no advice which can be given generally by the Government or any organisation. However, I strongly recommend a pamphlet written by Mr. Lewis of the National Council for One-Parent Families, which sets out as clearly as I have seen in a document, official or unofficial, considerations which one-parent families should bear in mind in considering their attitude to FIS and CHIB and the uprating this year.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I endorse what the Minister says about the clarity of Mr. Lewis's pamphlet. Is he saying, as a Government Minister standing at the Dispatch Box that Mr. Lewis's figures and conclusions are wholly accurate?

Mr. Deakins: I cannot say that they are wholly accurate for every individual family, but the bulk of general recipients and individual families to whom the pamphlet is directed can rely on the excellent advice in it, but obviously there may be individual cases which one cannot cater for in the three or four pages of detailed explanation which Mr. Lewis gave.
I shall quote CHIB because it is vital to introduce CHIB quickly to help the poorer families. We recognise that we are dealing with a scheme with rough edges and that some families, particularly families in work on means-tested benefits, might not gain overall. The important point is that it is expected that some 200,000 will gain financially through claiming CHIB, and the total income of CHIB recipients will in all cases be larger than before its introduction because of the increased child tax allowances, the FIS uprating and the likely changes in the needs allowances for housing benefits this autumn.
Hon. Members, the National Council for One-Parent Families and the Child Poverty Action Group have raised the important point about maximum grant payable in FIS. It has been a feature of FIS since its introduction, and the nature of the scheme makes it necessary. FIS is a benefit in support of poor working families with a minimum of inquiry and a quite simple means test. It is


run on a postal basis from a central office in Blackpool, and, once awarded, runs for 12 months regardless of change in circumstances in that period. There is no intention to gauge the supplement, but the process needs a broad-brush approach with low administration costs. It inevitably has rough edges. If, because of the large payments, we were unable to allow the benefit to run on unchanged by changed circumstances, one great attraction of the scheme would be lost. Since the Government took office the maximum payments grant has kept pace with inflation. With uprating, this relationship should be maintained.
I now come to the point about the earnings of low-income families over the past year. I could give the House a lot of detailed information, but it would be wrong at this late hour to go into too much detail. With regard to the benefits to varying categories of one-child families who are not receiving CHIB but have received the full £6 increase in the current year, in 1976 a family which is now earning £20 a week—a very low wage indeed—having received the full £6 increase, will now have a total income, because of the FIS maximum, of £28·50, and will have had an increase over the comparable figure last year of 35·7 per cent. The one-child family not receiving CHIB, on £25·30 a week currently, having received a £6 increase also in the past year, will now get an increase of £7, making £32 a week, which is a 26·5 increase on last year.
I quote those examples and percentages to show that in general the lower income families, if they have had £6 a week, have benefited more than the higher income families.
It is very difficult to make accurate estimates of the take-up of FIS, but, if we start with the first year, it is estimated that the take-up in 1972 was about 50 per cent. In 1973, it increased to about two-thirds. In 1974 it is estimated to be about three-quarters. That is still not good enough, but it shows that over the period since FIS was introduced there has been an improvement in take-up.
Currently about 59,000 to 60,000 families are getting FIS, and, with the uprating in the regulations, about 85,000 will be expected to take up the benefit.
With regard to publicity, a national Press and television advertising cam-

paign will be carried out when the prescribed amounts go up in July. The total expenditure on the campaign is estimated at £175,000. Information about the scheme will also be given to potential beneficiaries who claim other social security benefits during the year. Leaflets and posters will be distributed to post offices, local authority offices, citizens' advice bureaux and so on.
In addition, where claims were received after October 1975 which failed because the family's income was above the 1975 prescribed amount, those claimants who were rejected will be identified and invited to re-apply for FIS for July if their income at the date of the previous claim was below the prescribed new income levels.
Lastly, the document from the National Council for One-Parent Families, circulated to a number of Members in preparation for the debate, was not sent to my Department, as far as I am aware, or to me as a Minister or Member of Parliament. But, thanks to the good offices of my hon. Friend, I was given a copy of it today. It would be inappropriate and unfair of me to comment on what is obviously a well-thought-outdocument, or to attempt to go into it in great detail at this late stage on the basis of only a few hours' acquaintance with it. The council deserves more than an off-the-cuff and perhaps rather offhand and even slightly inaccurate reply. We shall be considering very carefully the proposition put forward in the document.
My hon. Friend's last point brought an echo of acclamation almost on this side of the House, and I hope it will be supported by the Opposition. It was that the main problem in dealing with family poverty, where people are in work, is that of low wages. It is not basically a problem of tax thresholds or means-tested benefits. If wages could be higher for the lower-paid quintale of the population, we would do more to alleviate family poverty than by any other step that the Government or our society could take.
My hon. Friend said that we should strengthen wages councils. That is not my direct responsibility, but I shall see that his remarks are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the


Secretary of State for Employment. Suffice it to say that I shall do my best when considering future strategy—and the hon. Member for Rushcliffe was right to say that we need a strategy—to lay down a strategy that will seek to alleviate family poverty.
Such a strategy must not only take account of benefits—means-tested and non-means-tested—and of tax and tax thresholds; it must also take account of low, sometimes poverty, wages paid not merely to one-parent families but to low wage-earners generally, many of whom are in two-parent families with a large number of children. If we adopt that tripartite or three-pronged approach to alleviate family poverty, we shall get somewhere. If we can carry the Opposition with us, we shall have done a good deal.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 26th April, be approved.

Orders of the Day — COMPANIES No. 2 BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committeed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — COMPANIES (No. 2) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to companies and, in connection therewith, to amend the law relating to the registration of business names, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of that Art.—[Mr. Clinton Davis.]

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

COMPANIES (No. 2)

Resolved,
That any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to companies may—

(1) require the payment of fees to the registrar of companies in respect of matters specified by regulations made under that Act;
(2) authorise the registrar of companies to charge fees for any services provided by him otherwise than in pursuance of an obligation imposed on him by law;
(3) provide for the payment into the Consolidated Fund of fees payable to the registrar of companies in pursuance of that Act.—[Mr. Clinton Davis.]

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instrument, &amp;c.)

SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND)

That the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 (Private Jurisdiction, &c.) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th April, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]

AGRICULTURE

That the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) (Amendment) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 602), a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th April, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — COUNCIL HOUSES, LUTON (SALE)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

1.18 a.m.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I rise to support the campaign that will stop Luton's Tories selling off council houses and to seek to enlist the support of my hon. Friend the Minister in that campaign.
Even before they have met, Luton's new Tory councillors have shown that they are a bunch of housing wreckers who intend to do to the homeless and those on the housing waiting list what


hooligans in "bovver boots" do to people they manifestly dislike. In their public statements they have made it clear that they intend to bring to housing policies in Luton their own distinctive brand of illiterate Poujadism backed by a small-town, bloody-minded meanness of spirit.
Their housing policies can be summed up in a trice: stop the building of new council houses wherever possible and sell off land, force rents to astronomical heights and run down the council's housing stock by the indiscriminate sale of council houses at a discount.
Tonight I want to concentrate on the harm that will be done to Luton by the sale of council houses. In passing, however, I note that the hammer of council tenants, Mayor Lester—who, like his colleagues, treats them as second-class citizens—has already announced that Labour's proposal to build homes for 2,500 families at Bramingham Wood will be scrapped. He has said that, if the land is to be used for housing at all, the Tories intend to build privately for sale at £25,000 to commuters from Luton. Unfortunately, their message to the people of Luton on the waiting list is "Damn you, Jack—we're all right".
The arguments against the sale of council houses are as follows. It reduces the pool of accommodation to rent at a time when housing to rent constitutes the town's greatest need. It damages mobility and threatens the industrial expansion of towns such as Luton because of a shortage of rented accommodation. While it helps a few of the poor, it damages the interests of the majority of the poor. It may increase public expenditure because the cost of council houses gradually decreases, whereas tax relief on mortgages rises rapidly because of the frequency of reselling.
Older people who buy council houses will find themselves in difficulty when they reach pensionable age. The random freeholds resulting from the sale of council houses creates immense problems in redeveloping estates. It makes no sense for councils to sell existing houses for £10,000 and to have to replace them for £15,000. The policy of selling newer houses can create council ghettos.
All these facts are too well known to need repetition. Between them, they form

an overwhelming case against the sale of council houses, particularly in Luton, where there are 4,000 families on the housing waiting list, which is increasing at the rate of 10 families a week.
Everyone in the House knows that the more houses that are sold, the fewer the relets that are available for people on the waiting list. In towns like Luton, relets form the major part of housing provision for people on the waiting list because of the shortage of building land and the small new building programme. Substantial sales of council houses could create a major crisis which could have serious social consequences for Luton which no one, not even the Tories in the town, would want.
An analysis of the figures is frightening. In the past five years the council has provided 4,074 homes through a combination of new building and relets. About 63 per cent. of this provision is through relets. If there are extensive sales of council houses in Luton, this supply of relets will dry up and other Tory policies will lead to the drying up of the supply of new homes.
The House should have the full figures. In Luton in 1971–72 there were 320 completions and 622 relets. The respective figures for subsequent years were as follows: 1972–73, 178 and 456; 1973–74, 280 and 471; 1974–75, 284 and 494: and 197–6, 418 and 551. In those five years there have been 1,480 completions and 2,594 relets.
One is bound to conclude that Messrs. Lester, Dunington and Hickinbottom are saying to the people on the waiting list who come to my surgery and literally cry because they cannot get a council house "Carry on crying". I cannot help these people because there is not the supply of council houses available.
It is no wonder that the Government issued Circular 70/74, which advised local authorities:
it is generally … wrong for local authorities to sell council houses. The first duty of a local authority is to ensure an adequate supply of rented dwellings.
Instead of accepting this sensible advice, Luton's Tories, inspired by malice, political bigotry and a Lady Young—I am not sure which of those is the worst—have decided to embark on a collision course with the Government and the decent people of Luton.
I should like to ask the Minister 10 questions. First, what is current Government policy on this issue? Secondly, can he confirm that powers exist—and state what they are—to require authorisation from his Department for the sale of council houses and that this authorisation can be withheld? Is it correct that he can withdraw the general consent which has operated for many years? Is he prepared to impose formal restrictions in areas of great housing need such as Luton where Tory councils act irresponsibly?
Will my hon. Friend take steps to stop the sale of all council houses, whether in areas of housing need or otherwise, al prices below market prices? Is he aware that many discounts on the sale of council houses more than reflect the restriction on the value of houses arising from the local authorities' right of preemption and from restrictions on the re-sale price? Will he issue guidance on discount selling to prevent Tory councils cheating ratepayers and indulging in political bribery?
Can my hon. Friend confirm that it is open to any ratepayer to seek to surcharge local councillors where houses are sold below their market value? When does he intend to make a full statement and issue a comprehensive circular on this matter? Will he condemn Luton's Tories in their irresponsible actions?
Like the rest of my colleagues in the Labour Party, I believe in home ownership. When I was a civil servant in the Ministry of Housing working under my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), the then Labour Government built more private houses and council houses than have been built at any time in our history before or since. That is the way we should proceed. There should be democratic local control of council estates. Council tenants should join councillors on tenants' committees to deal with maintenance and planning matters such as bus stops, telephone kiosks and community facilities. That is the way forward, not by the irresponsible sale of council houses.

1.31 a.m.

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: Like many other people in Luton I have a painful adjustment to make, but the painfulness of my adjustment is as

nothing compared with that of many other people, because I have a decent home in which to live. Since I became a Member of Parliament and until a fortnight ago I was used to a Labour-controlled borough council which built hundreds of council houses, planned future development, bought dwellings on the open market and did not sell council houses. When a constituent came to my surgery wanting a council I knew that there was some glimmer of hope, but what hope will there be now?
What hope will anyone be able to offer in the next few years if the Conservatives who now control the council put through their declared housing policy—or perhaps it is more accurate to describe it as a non-policy? The building of council houses must slump, particularly if the Bramingham Wood development is axed. At the same time, council houses will be sold. That must mean fewer council houses to go round. At the same time. the population of the town is growing, the waiting list is growing and more houses become uninhabitable.
What advice and what hope shall I be able to offer to young couples with kiddies living in rooms or in one of the old houses in the town, of which there are many in my constituency, where the damp rises just as surely as the spirits sink? Do I say "Go and buy a house. Do not tell me that you cannot afford it."? It would be fine for them to be able to buy their own house, and we should give them every encouragement to do so, but the plain, hard fact is that many people are not in a position to buy their own house. Must my hon. Friend and I say to them "I am sorry, you will have to wait longer, so long perhaps that your children will spend all their childhood in conditions which no decent town and no decent country should tolerate."?
The Government's position is that there is no question of an absolute bar on the sale of council houses. It is not written on tablets of stone that council houses shall never be sold. The Government's policy is that council houses should be sold only when the waiting time has been reduced to a month or two.
That is certainly not the position in Luton. We have the worst housing problem in Bedfordshire, as the recent county


structure plan consultative document showed. The council under Labour worked hard and valiantly to get to grips with this problem, but the council would be the first to say that the end of the tunnel is a very long way off.
For the new masters of the council to propose the sale of council houses is gravely mistaken. I appeal to the Minister to use whatever powers he has to dissuade them from this policy, which can only exacerbate a heart-rending problem. I hope that the message comes out loud and clear from the debate that the Government do not approve of the council's policy and that that message will dispel any mistaken ideas of Conservative leaders on Luton Council. General consent must not be taken as general approval.
As I understand it, the Government have said that they want a selective approach to this problem, taking into account the differences in each local situation. If this is so, the simple question is: what is the Government's attitude to the situation in Luton, where by no stretch of the imagination can it be said that the sale of council houses can be justified under the Government's criteria?

1.36 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) has been fortunate to secure a second debate within four months on the housing situation in Luton, which underlines his concern and, indeed, the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson). I understand that his involvement in housing, one way or another, goes back over many years, and he has made a forceful speech tonight.
On the previous occasion, on 27th January, the particular aspects which both hon. Members raised were the Luton Borough Council's need for more housing land, its freedom to decide for itself the size of any increase in the rents of its houses, and the improvement and rehabilitation of the older and worse provided elements in the council's housing stock. My hon. Friend was particularly anxious about the outcome of the borough council's application to build about 300 houses on a site at Pastures

Way. This proposal had been notified to the Department as a substantial departure from the development plan and was called in for decision by my right hon. Friend in view of objections raised by other parties.
I promised my hon. Friend at the time that we recognised the urgency of the matter, and, as he knows, a decision was announced shortly afterwards that the borough council's proposal should be allowed. In coming to that decision, we were deeply conscious of the council's difficulty in finding enough suitable land to provide for local housing needs, a difficulty which was eloquently and powerfully expounded by my hon. Friend in the debate.
Tonight my hon. Friends have raised a different and specific issue affecting Luton, namely, their concern at the implications for families and other people in need of housing in Luton if the Conservative group, now that the Conservatives are in a majority on the borough council, carry out its electoral promise to allow tenants of council houses to buy their homes. My hon. Friend has expressed his concern about the effect of sale of council houses in Luton in strong and emotive terms. It is an emotive subject, because people in desperate need of accommodation have every right to strong feelings.
I regret very much the sloganising on the issue by Tory spokesmen, including those at Luton. The Government's policy, however, is not based on emotion or on slogans. The Government's approach is, rather based on a rational and considered approach to the very difficult issues that selling council houses raise. Perhaps I ought to add that this issue has been blown up by the Opposition out of all proportion. Whatever is done about council house sales, the effect on those in real need will be very marginal indeed.
I shall come to those issues in a moment. But first there is a general point that ought to be made. During the recent local government election campaign, the Tories made it clear that if they were returned to office they would institute a policy of selling. However mistaken some of us may believe the local electorates to have been, the fact remains that they have, in several places, elected


councils that are committed to reintroduce selling. I think that a Government who have shown their faith in local democracy would have to consider very carefully before thwarting the expressed wish of a local government electorate. That does not mean, however, that the Government do not have powers to regulate the sale of council houses and that we shall ignore our consequent responsibilities, which we, in turn, have been elected to carry out. The review of this matter, which is being carried out in parallel with the housing finance review, will certainly be addressed to this issue, among others.
The Government made clear their policy on sale of council houses in the Supply debate on Tuesday. It is the first duty of local housing authorities to ensure an adequate supply of rented accommodation. This, in our view, rules out the indiscriminate sale of rented houses regardless of local need. Whether or not the selling of council houses is right is a matter that must be determined, locality by locality, in the light of local housing needs and conditions as a whole and, in particular, in the light of the local unmet need for rented accommodation. Where there is an unmet need, we are clear that local authorities should give priority to meeting this need rather than selling existing rented stock.
My hon. Friend also referred to the granting of the so-called "discounts" on the sale of council houses. I know that many of my hon. Friends are dubious about this practice of granting these discounts. It has been suggested that they are, in fact, a subsidy to the particular people who purchase their house. The practice of granting such discounts was on that the Labour Government instituted in 1967. It helps to put tenants who purchase council houses on a par with sitting tenants in the private sector who have security of tenure.
Where local authority houses have been sold and discounts allowed, the practice has been to impose restrictions on resale. Now, it is a general principle that disposal of publicly-owned property should be at market value; and it was on the basis that such conditions have been held to have the effect of reducing market value that we allowed the practice in 1967.
It may be that in Luton the better course would be to build for sale rather than sell the existing stock. As hon. Members may know, the granting of discounts so as to reduce the market value at which dwellings are sold is possible not only on the sale of existing stock but also with houses built specifically for sale. My Department would be glad to offer Luton Borough Council advice in the procedures and benefits of building for sale.
It is this kind of consideration that authorities ought to take into account in deciding their policy on sales and, indeed, on the terms on which they should sell, if they do. The Government will, therefore, be looking to Luton Borough Council to formulate its policy accordingly, as we would, indeed, all other authorities in the country.
My hon. Friend has argued that with a waiting list of around 4,000 it would be not just folly, but unjust and wrong for the council to reduce the stock of housing that it has available for letting by selling off some of those houses to existing tenants.
The background is that Luton has grown very fast. Its population has increased by about 26,000 in the last 15 years. It is still an area of considerable population and housing pressure. No doubt the housing list of 4,000 in Luton stems partly from this influx in population. It has to be set against between 500 and 600 houses becoming available each year for reletting. To bridge the gap, the previous council—and I congratulate it on this—embarked on a big increase in the building programme, which was scheduled to result in some 800 new dwellings being started this year and more than 600 next year. The previous council had set its face against selling off any of its houses and I believe that in the past seven years only 104 houses have been sold. Luton's total stock is 11,500 council houses. This is an indication of the conditions in the light of which the new council will have to make its decision on sales.
My hon. Friend asked a number of questions. They were good questions. Some of them I have already dealt with in detail. For the rest, there are general powers in the scabbard, but whether rattling them is the right approach to the situation we are discussing remains to be seen.
We can be sure that the council will take note of what my hon. Friend has so eloquently said in the House. But, in any case, on assuming the mantle of office, the new majority group in Luton will have the benefit of the wider information and outlook which full access to official resources inevitably gives a majority group. We hope that the new Luton Borough Council will make the fullest use of the resources and will take a decision

that is pragmatic rather than doctrinaire. The needs of the people of Luton should be their first priority.
I shall give detailed consideration to the points made by my hon. Friends and will be in touch with them if I think that any further advice will be helpful.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Two o'clock